Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

PS v NB

6 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3485 (Fam)
High Court
A couple is divorcing. The husband claims to be poor, but the wife thinks he's hiding money. The judge believes the wife, so the husband has to pay his wife money to live on and for her lawyers, and he can't sell the family home yet.

Key Facts

  • Financial remedy proceedings following divorce between PS (wife) and NB (husband).
  • Both parties have Country D heritage but live in England.
  • Wife is 57, husband is 56; two adult children.
  • Family home worth approximately £6 million with a £3.5 million mortgage.
  • Wife applied for maintenance pending suit (MPS), legal services payment order (LASPO), and opposed husband's application to sell the family home under the Trust of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TLATA).
  • Significant legal fees accrued on both sides.
  • Dispute centers around the husband's presentation of his financial circumstances, with the wife alleging he has access to substantial hidden assets through a trust.

Legal Principles

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

Outcomes

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.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.