Key Facts
- •W (47) and H (53), both E country nationals, are divorcing after a long marriage.
- •They have three children (18, 17, 15).
- •H is a multi-billionaire; W has significant assets but far less than H.
- •Complicated jurisdictional issues exist concerning divorce proceedings in England and E country.
- •Parties dispute habitual residence for jurisdiction purposes.
- •Children are currently residing in E country with H.
- •W applied for Maintenance Pending Suit (MPS) and a Legal Services Payment Order (LSPO).
- •H's financial disclosure was deemed insufficient.
- •Significant dispute regarding the standard of living and financial support post-separation.
- •H curtailed W's access to funds and certain assets post-petition.
Legal Principles
The court has power to award MPS even where jurisdiction is challenged, but should act cautiously considering the strength of the jurisdiction claim.
MET v HAT [2013] EWHC 4247, MG v GM [2022] EWFC 8
In LSPO applications, the court considers all matters in s22 ZB(1)-(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, including the respondent's ability to pay and the applicant's ability to obtain funds elsewhere.
Rubin v Rubin [2014] EWHC 611
For MPS, the sole criterion is reasonableness, synonymous with fairness, and the court should consider the standards of the ultra-rich.
TL v ML 2006 1 FLR 1263, Rattan v Kuwad [2021] EWCA Civ 1, F v F [1996] 2 FCR 397
Outcomes
LSPO granted totaling £736,500, payable in installments.
W's case on jurisdiction has merit; her lawyers require payment to continue; she lacks sufficient liquid assets to fund litigation; H's vast wealth allows for this order; a discount applied due to the jurisdictional hearing being sooner than anticipated.
MPS granted at a reduced amount from W's claimed budget.
Considering H's vast wealth, W's pre-separation lifestyle, and the period of unrestrained spending post-separation, certain budget items were deemed unreasonable or unnecessary; H to pay certain expenses directly.