After his ex-wife requested a lump sum payment of £230,000 for private education, a rich attorney who grew up on an Essex council estate won a court battle to retain his 15-year-old daughter enrolled in a London public school.
55-year-old Since their separation in 2009 after 2.5 years of marriage, Jason Galbraith-Marten KC’s ex-wife Catherine de Renée, a portrait artist, has pursued him in court on several occasions.
Ms. De Renee, 45, was dissatisfied with the £72,000 financial settlement she got after their divorce, while Mr. Galbraith-Marten and his new wife continued to live in their £1.6 million Fulham property.
The Australian-born artist claimed she was left depending on benefits. She is known for her “sensual” female portraits, which she claims evoke a “mood packed with drama, intensity, and lingering sexiness.”
After making many “fabricated” accusations against Mr. Galbraith-Marten, citing criminal behavior ranging “from attempted murder” to “attacks on her cat,” a court in 2019 barred Ms. de Renée from filing any other lawsuits without authorization.
Judge Mostyn of the High Court has now rejected Ms. de Renée’s most recent attempt to get a lump sum payment of $230,000 for her 15-year-old daughter, who attends a public school in London, to have a private education.
But since Mr. Galbraith-profession Marten’s has advanced significantly since the prior ruling, he has given her authority to demand higher child support payments.
Mr. Galbraith-Marten, a renowned expert in employment law who was admitted to the bar in 2014, sought to retain his teenage daughter enrolled in a public school. The KC’s other two kids don’t attend a private school.
The KC was required to pay £1,315 per month in child support under the most recent court order, which was issued in 2018, and the High Court heard that the KC “had paid this sum punctually for the previous four years.”
Ms. de Renée requested that Mr. Justice Mostyn enhance the monthly child support payments from £1,315 to £4,350, with retroactive effect to April 2020.
As a “exceptional” lawyer and “a leader in his profession,” the court said he “would be amazed” if Mr. Galbraith-gross Marten’s income was less than £350,000. The judge then gave her permission to present her case for child support.
According to the guidelines, his obligation to pay child support would be £2,361 per month at that level, he added.
Despite the mother’s abusive behavior against the father, I have to admit that I think the current standard of general upkeep is too low.
The history of this case is rather extensive. In Australia, the parties’ daughter was only 15 months old when the legal proceedings between them commenced in March 2009.
Since then, there has been “furious litigation,” both in Australia and in England.
He did, however, grant Mr. Galbraith-request Marten’s to extend the civil restraint order that bars his ex from taking him to court without a judge’s express consent, stating that it was justified because “the mother had been deliberately untruthful in a number of respects when making accusations of the utmost seriousness” about her ex.
He continued by rejecting the wife’s request that her ex-husband pay $230,000 in private school tuition, stating that it would “in my opinion not only be detrimental to her interests but fundamentally unfair” if he were to be obliged to do so.
He continued, “There is no proof of the existing level of the father’s income,” allowing the mother permission to contest the amount of child maintenance.
In June 2018, District Judge Aitken determined that his total taxable income, including dividends from (his firm) Assurety Ltd., was £185,000.
He has been a silk for eight years and works out of a prestigious set of chambers.
In the area of employment and equality legislation, he is a pioneer. If his total taxable income, including dividends, was less than £350,000, I would be shocked.
“In my view, authorization should be granted to bring the mother’s planned application to change the general maintenance.”
He continued by directing Mr. Galbraith-Marten to provide the court with proof of his earnings prior to the next hearing.
‘The woman was legally instructed when she made the Australian agreements,’ Lady Justice Black said in the 2016 case, which dismissed the wife’s Court of Appeal appeal to the first Australian divorce settlement.
If she felt they weren’t just or didn’t meet her requirements, she may have gone there for assistance.
She was allowed to express her opinions in front of the Australian court when she later realized how unsatisfied she was, and they were looked at but not proven.
Even in English courts, the accords established would have had significant weight.
Even in this nation, the wife’s increased need would not be a justification for revisiting a consent-based arrangement.
Nothing demonstrated that the settlement was unjust. Despite the fact that there was undoubtedly a kid born, this marriage was brief.
“This court is not here to top up every foreign divorce,” it is said.