DH v RH
[2023] EWFC 111
KV v KV
3 July 2024
[2024] EWFC 165
Family Court
A very rich husband and wife are divorcing, and there's a fight about where the divorce happens. The wife didn't have enough money to pay her lawyers, so the judge ordered the husband to pay her lawyers' fees and for her living expenses while they sort things out, even though he argued she was rich enough. The judge looked at how much they both spent before and decided how much the husband should pay to be fair.
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.