DH v RH
[2023] EWFC 111
Maintenance Pending Suit (MPS): Reasonableness and fairness are the sole criteria, considering the marital standard of living, immediate needs, and respondent's income and resources. Robust assumptions can be made about a payer's ability to pay if disclosure is deficient.
TL v ML [2005] EWHC 2860; Rattan v Kuwad [2021] EWCA Civ 1; HAT v LAT [2023] EWHC 162; Dictionary of Financial Remedies (2023 edition)
Legal Services Payment Order (LASPO): Court must be satisfied that without the order, the applicant would not reasonably be able to obtain appropriate legal services. Court considers relative income, needs, subject matter, and the effect on the paying party. The court should not fund the applicant beyond the FDR.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 22ZA; Rubin v Rubin [2014] EWHC 611; BC v DE [2016] EWHC 1806; Dictionary of Financial Remedies (2023 edition)
TLATA Application: Court considers factors in section 15 of TLATA, including intentions of the settlor, purposes of the trust, welfare of minors, and interests of secured creditors. Court also considers section 33 of the Family Law Act 1996 and the likelihood of resolving the issue within the broader financial remedy proceedings. Courts are slow to take interim steps that pre-empt the final hearing.
Trust of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TLATA), section 15; Family Law Act 1996, section 33; BR v VT (2016) 2 FLR 519; Miller-Smith v Miller-Smith (2009) EWCA Civ 1297; WS v HS (2018) 2 FLR 525
Husband's TLATA application for sale of the family home was dismissed.
Measurable chance wife will obtain ownership of the home at the final hearing; selling the house now would pre-empt this possibility.
MPS order granted: Husband to pay £7,500 per month.
Wife's budget was adjusted downwards; considers husband's likely access to substantial assets despite his presentation.
LASPO order granted: Husband to pay £164,655 for past costs and £202,902 (£40,580 per month) for future costs until the pretrial review.
Wife's legal fees deemed reasonable, considering case complexity; wife expected to contribute £300,000 from her own assets.
Husband to pay mortgage payments and household outgoings.
Based on the finding that the husband has access to substantial assets and his financial presentation is unreliable.