Lord Lilford v Glyn: CA 1979

The judge had ordered the father to make money settlements on his daughters which had no relation to accommodation or their need during minority.
Held: The judge had gone quite ouside the jurisdiction of the Act, and the appeal succeeded. Children are entitled to a suitable home, to an upbringing, and to an education which is appropriate to their family’s circumstances and standard of living. But they are not entitled to long term provision into adulthood unless they have some special need.
Orr LJ said: ‘There is not . . one rule for millionaires and another for less wealthy fathers.’


Orr LJ


[1979] 1 WLR 78


Matrimonial Causes Act 19735


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTavoulareas v Tavoulareas (2) CA 19-Nov-1996
Both husband and wife had independent means, and neither worked. The wife had spent pounds 100,000k on Children Act proceedings, and sought ancillary relief. The judge had made an order on capital to reflect the fact that if those costs had not been . .
CitedIlott v The Blue Cross and Others SC 15-Mar-2017
What is reasonable provision for daughter
The deceased had left her estate in her will to several animal charities. The claimant, her daughter, had been estranged from her mother for many years, and sought reasonable provision from her estate under the 1975 Act. The district judge had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Child Support

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.235329