AT v NB (Maintenance Pending Suit) [2025] EWFC 248 (B)

Judgment date: 4 August 2025

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2025/248

DDJ Mark Harrop. Judgment on wife’s application for interim maintenance.

The facts

The parties (Husband in his early seventies and Wife in her mid-fifties) married in 2009 and separated in 2022 with the Husband moving out of the family home. They have a 16-year-old daughter who lives at the family home with the Wife. The Husband lives with his very elderly mother; [8].

The Husband traditionally took his income from a large portfolio of rental properties. The Wife works as a project assistant for the council and owns a couple of rental properties; [9].

Since separating, the Husband maintained his payment of mortgage instalments, water bills, and the home insurance on the family home, amounting to £1,350 per month. He contributed to their daughter’s school fees costing £1,700 per month. He has only paid the Wife child maintenance of £30.50 (despite a CMS assessment of £966 per month – a figure which has since been reviewed at the tribunal hearing); [10].

The parties have mortgages on the family home and rental properties, and each additionally have considerable personal debt; [11].

The law

The relevant law on interim maintenance was summarised by Moylan LJ in Rattan v Kuwad [2021] EWCA Civ 1:

• The power to order interim maintenance is broad in order to enable the court to act swiftly to meet the urgent income and financial needs of a spouse and children, notwithstanding that it may be an early stage of proceedings where evidence is not clear; [5(i)].
• Reasonableness (or ‘fairness’, TL v ML [2005] EWHC 2860) is the test; [5(ii)]. Any order must be to meet ‘immediate’ (Rattan at [33]) needs and ‘short term cash flow problems’ (Moore v Moore [2009] EWCA Civ 1427). The spouses’ marital standard of living may be considered; [5(iii)].
• A ‘rough and ready approach’ may be taken given the nature and timing of interim maintenance applications. A specific interim needs budget is helpful but not necessary for proceeding; [5(iv), (v)].
• If the payer’s financial disclosure is obviously deficient, the court should make robust assumptions about his ability to pay; [5(vi)].

The parties’ positions

The Husband said he would maintain monthly payments of £3,080 but could not afford more; [12]. The Wife sought £4,000 monthly plus the Husband’s contribution to housing costs; [13].

Approach

The court considered a framework of issues to consider which can be applied in maintenance applications; [15]:

• What are the Wife’s interim income needs?
• To what extent is she able to meet those needs herself?
• If there is a shortfall, is it appropriate to look to the Husband to make up the difference?
• If so, what can he afford to pay?

The judge took a broad-brush approach to the Wife’s interim budget, per Rattan. Bearing their previous standard of living in mind, the Wife’s figures were overall not considered ‘unreasonable’ or ‘inappropriate’; [18]. The Wife should be entitled to the Husband making up the shortfall if he can afford to; [29].

The court rejected £420 per month towards arrears to their daughter’s school fees. The judge highlighted that there was no evidence that the school was about to sue them and concluded that this debt should not be given priority; [20]. He also rejected £242 per month towards orthodontic work for their daughter as not an ‘immediate’ cost; [21].

He included the Wife’s car payment as an income need but the issue of whether the debt should have been incurred post-separation was a matter for later in the proceedings; [19].

As with analysis of the Wife’s income, the Husband’s budget must be looked at critically; [36]. Maintenance and gardening were considered non-critical expenditure which should be kept to a minimum until trial; [36].

He considered how much income tax should be budgeted for; [37].

Affordability and overall fairness

The judge considered what the Husband is already committed to paying, such as costs on the family home (£1,350 per month) and the effect on his annual income if he were to pay the Wife’s shortfall; [38].

He then considered the Wife’s incomings and costs against those of the Husband. This included household maintenance and bills which are covered by the Husband, credit commitments, money available for lifestyle spending, and the daughter’s living costs. These were compared to the Husband’s lower living costs by living with his mother; [39].

Conclusions

It was fair and reasonable for H to pay W £1,700 global maintenance for herself and their daughter, plus mortgage, water and insurance bills on the family home; [42]. This would leave the parties with a broadly equivalent, or not obviously unequal, standard of living until the final hearing.

The issue had previously been appealed. The judge noted HHJ Clarke’s observation during the appeal that ‘where there is a shortfall the parties would normally share the pain’; [40].

He decided against backdating due to a lack of capital reserves; [43].

Interim maintenance applications are subject to the ‘clean sheet’ costs regime; [44].