From Goalposts to Schedule 1 claims: Navigating witness credibility and press reporting in light of Kyle Walker's legal manoeuvres.

From the football pitch to the family court room - Kyle Walker and Lauryn Goodman's latest court proceedings relating to the financial arrangements for their second child were published this week. But what can we learn from the comments of the Judge from the Central Family Court?

Proceedings under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 are brought between unmarried parents where they cannot agree on the financial provision for their children. These claims can include 'top up' maintenance (beyond the levels that can be obtained through the Child Maintenance Service), school fees, capital sums for housing provision and other lump sum payments (for example for the purchase of a car or the clearing of debts). The courts have the power to make such orders as they consider appropriate, having reviewed the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of each parent by assessing the financial disclosure of each party.  

So, what did Lauryn Goodman ask the court for?

Against the backdrop of the financial provision already provided for their first child, which included the payment of a capital sum for a house (costing £2,400,000), with an additional sum of £75,000 for furniture, and periodical payments of £9,188 pcm, the basis of Lauryn's claims for her second child included the following:

• Air conditioning (at a cost of £33,000).
• Astroturf (at a cost of £31,200), and internal re-modelling to the home (at a cost of £4,000).
• A further furniture fund of £20,000.
• An increase to the existing provision for her car, such that she would receive a replacement car costing £70,000 every three years.
• Another car for her nanny, costing £30,000, to be replaced every three years.
• Removal of the condition on her housing fund, that if she moved within 100 miles of Kyle’s family home, the £2.4m would be reduced to £1.35m (proportionately uplifted).

Arguments were made by Lauryn including that the astroturf was needed as their daughter has talent which may lead to ‘a future career as a professional footballer qualified to become a 'Lioness'’, which was a stretch too far for the court, who rejected this request.  Indeed, His Honour Judge Hess rejected many of the requests of the mother and it is a reminder that Schedule 1 claims are for reasonable financial support for the needs of children.

Whilst the judgment, as a whole, makes for an interesting read, there are two key takeaways, the first relating to witnesses' credibility and the second to the publication of the details of the case itself.

The Judge’s view on the respective credibility of the witnesses played a key role, with His Honour Judge Hess commenting that the father was 'sensible, honest and reliable' and that he made appropriate concessions, where the mother did have a point, with 'grace generosity and kindness'. On the other hand, he concluded that the mother 'failed to make a calm and measured assessment of what she needed and often exaggerated her need to spend money' and was 'happy to take every point against him' and 'gave the father no credit' for the financial provision he had already made. These observations clearly impacted on His Honour Judge Hess’s view of what financial provision was truly needed. 

Publication of the details of the case followed three requests from journalists to attend and report on the hearing. There is currently a pilot running about the reporting of Family court cases, which was introduced on 29 January 2024. Subject to the court’s rules on any necessary anonymity, judges are able to make Transparency Orders, which allow for press reporting. Due to the existing public profile of the parties, His Honour Hess allowed for his judgment to be reported without redaction, even though this was opposed by Lauryn. The Judge noted the irony in her seeking privacy, having recently dressed her son up in an England shirt with ‘Daddy’ on the back (on a trip to the Euros where she was photographed by the press in exchange for payment). His Honour Judge Hess there was no need for the court to try to impose any restrictions and furthermore that it was in the public interest that ‘anybody interested in the topic should have the opportunity to read the full independent account’.

The family court's transparency reporting pilot continues. It will be interesting to see if there is any reporting of Schedule 1 matters where the parties are not in the public eye.