Stock

: The 41-year-old man loses the authorized provide to power "very rich" mother and father to help him financially – and he has to pay them a value of £ 60,000

The Royal Courts building in London, England.

AFP via Getty Images

A 41-year-old man failed to force his "very wealthy" parents to sponsor him in an "unprecedented" legal battle.

The man, a qualified lawyer who lives in an apartment in central London, was instead ordered to pay his parents nearly £ 60,000 (US $ 77,368) in legal fees after a judge ruled that he had no case.

The man's lawyer argued that he was entitled to financial relief based on laws relating to marriage and children, as well as the jurisdiction of the court to protect vulnerable adults, all of whom were fired.

British family judge James Munby summed up the facts, saying the man with intellectual disabilities has a degree in history, a master's in taxes and is a qualified lawyer but has been unemployed since 2011. The judge added his parents, who live in Dubai, have been giving him financial support – allowing him to live in a London apartment they own and paying his electricity bills until recently – but that support has been decreasing lately as it has declined the relationship has worsened.

The man's lawyer, Tim Amos, said the "very wealthy" parents had "maintained his dependency on them" for the past 20 years but are now trying to "transfer that dependency to the British state" – an account held by denied by the parents' lawyers.

Munby dismissed the claims, ruled in favor of the parents and refused permission to appeal what he described as "unedifying and really quite sad". He added that, as far as he was aware, the case was unprecedented.

"The law – that is, common law and justice – has never brought a cause of action or lawsuit between a financially dependent adult child and their parents," he added in a judgment emailed on COVID-19 compliance -Log was sent.

Munby ordered the man to pay his own parents a cost of £ 57,425, saying: “The fact is that an adult son has decided to bring financial claims against his parents. In this endeavor he has completely failed. There is absolutely no reason why he shouldn't face the consequences. "

Amos had argued that the man was entitled to financial relief from his parents under the 1973 Causes of Marriage Act, the 1989 Children’s Act and the “inherent jurisdiction” of the Vulnerable Adult Court. He said provisions within those laws that allowed the court to instruct parents to financially support young children could also apply to adult children.

Munby noted, however, that this required a court order to get financial assistance when the child was young and so the parents could live separately – neither of which applied in this case.

He also denied claims that the court could order assistance to provide an adult child with an education – since the man was studying tax and legal qualifications. "Conventional wisdom and practice would indicate that these provisions were never intended to be used and cannot be used to fund the education of an eternal disciple."

The court did not publish the names of the family members.

Related Articles