The Family Court addressed complex and high-cost divorce proceedings, focusing on a legal services payment order and its various components. 

Background:

This case relates to two applications made by the wife. The first was in relation to a maintenance pending suit (MPS). On the 23rd May 2024, the parties agreed that the husband would maintain the financial status quo regarding the family expenses and agreed to pay the wife an MPS of £29,500 pm. The wife sought clarification on ‘maintaining the financial status quo’. If determined in the way the husband had contended, this would have amounted to an increase of £5,400 pm in the MPS. 

The second application was for a legal services payment order (LSPO) for outstanding and estimated future legal costs of £1,121,467. Within that amount was an unpaid invoice of £ 241,269 that the wife sought to be paid within 7 days. 
The wife has previously made two applications under the Family Law Act (FLA) 1996 for occupation orders in respect of the family home. These were compromised on 23rd May 2024 and 10th December 2024. Her third application for such an order is listed for the 30th June 2025. 

The husband offered to pay the wife the sum of £250,000, a quantum to be funded by the sale of shares to her solicitors in monthly tranches of £50,000 from February to June 2025 on condition that the wife did not ask for any further sums for costs before the Private Financial Dispute Resolution (pFDR) appointment or in relation to any other matters up to, and including, that date.

Decision: 

Nicholas Allen KC noted that the parties' combined Form H costs already exceeded £675,000 and that, if the dispute continues, it could reach similar amounts to other notorious cases in which the courts have described such litigation as ‘nihilistic’ or ‘apocalyptic’. 

The Court examined the statutory framework under the Matrimonial Causes Act (MCA) 1973 and relevant case law, including Rubin v Rubin, to determine the appropriateness of the costs claimed. The wife had been turned down for loans by a litigation funder (Level) and three banks. Her solicitors would not enter a Sears Tooth agreement and have agreed to extend credit only until the determination of the LSPO application. Section 22ZA(4) MCA 1973 is, therefore, satisfied. 

The Court then looked at the affordability of the sums sought by the wife. The Judge, based on the evidence, ruled that there were no concerns as to the husband's ability to pay, even if he liquidated some shares which would then impact his income. 

Regarding the unpaid invoices, the breakdown showed that £177,975 was in relation to the financial remedy proceedings and £63,994 in relation to the FLA 1996 proceedings. The Judge did not see any justification for ordering payment of the latter, as the dates of the FLA proceedings were compromised on the basis of no order for costs. 

The husband objected to paying the outstanding financial remedy costs because his wife had already received £185,000 in respect of incurred and future costs. If the wife’s solicitors underestimated the costs, then it was not the husband’s problem. The Judge was of the view that “the £177,975 incurred in relation to the ongoing financial remedy proceedings is prima facie recoverable. I am satisfied that without such a payment the wife will not reasonably be able to obtain appropriate legal services for the purposes of the financial remedy application.” The husband was ordered to pay the £177,975 in historic costs. 

Regarding the future costs, the wife’s use of a shadow expert was explained by the complex makeup of the husband’s resources. The Judge noted that “a figure of £500,000 is the reasonable and appropriate sum to take this case to the conclusion of the PFDR Appointment in early June 2025. This is a reduction of c. £150,000 in the sum sought.”

The Judge refused the MPS of £46,668, finding it unfair on the husband who is already paying £29,500 pm and paying various household bills, school fees, education expenses and reasonable medical and holiday expenses. He was also ordered to pay £75,000 in respect of FLA 1996 costs. 

The final figure was £752,975. 

Implications:

This case provides good insights into managing legal costs in family proceedings. It is important that any request is not abusive and is included in order to ensure that each parties are adequately represented. Courts will try to balance the need for legal funding against the risk of encouraging excessive litigation costs. Litigants cannot spend as they like without regard to proportionality and the other party who is required to write the cheque. 

The Judge also expressed his concerns about the rising costs of family proceedings.