Judd J. This case concerned an application by the mother for a legal services payment order (LSPO) in respect of both financial remedy and Children Act 1989 proceedings. The mother sought an LSPO amounting to £143,499 excluding this day’s costs with respect to the financial proceedings. This included £58,072 already expended in costs and £85,377 for costs going forwards. In respect of the CA 1989 proceedings, the mother sought £239,782 which included costs to date and future costs. Apart from £50,000 in a bank account, the only significant asset the mother had was a property that she owned. The home that the mother and child lived in was owned entirely by the father.

The statutory test as set out in s 22ZA Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the test in Rubin were applied. Ultimately, to succeed in her application the mother needed to demonstrate that without the payment she would not reasonably be able to obtain appropriate legal services for the proceedings or part of them. The test also requires that the mother demonstrate that she is not able to secure a loan or payment by way of charging any of her assets.

An important consideration when considering the test was whether the property owned by the mother should be treated as her home in the way envisaged by Mostyn J in Rubin when he said that he would not expect a party to sell or charge their home or deplete a modest sum of savings. The judge accepted that the mother could reasonably obtain legal services going forward without selling the home she owned. Whilst it could be possible for the mother to sell her property, pay her legal costs and purchase somewhere cheaper, this was speculative with it being unclear as to how much she would raise, and the process would take some time.

Having seen a letter from the mother’s solicitors, the judge accepted that they would not act unless they were put in funds with respect to the costs they had already incurred, or at least a significant proportion of them, as well as provision for future costs. In respect of the historic financial remedy costs, the judge noted that some of them had been incurred due to the mother being disorganised in the way she managed her affairs. On the other hand, it had taken the father a long time to engage in efforts to settle the case, which made the proceedings longer and more drawn out. Taking all this into account, the judge made an allowance of £30,000 towards past costs.

Whilst the judge accepted that the mother would not reasonably be able to obtain legal services up to and including the next hearing without an order, the sum of £85,000 claimed for a one-day hearing was too high. Most of the case had been prepared and the hearing would proceed by way of submissions only. In respect of future costs for the financial remedy proceedings, the judge ordered that the mother receive £30,000, taking the total LSPO for the financial proceedings to £60,000.

In respect of the CA 1989 proceedings, the judge noted that they were particularly sensitive and complex, and it was extremely important for the mother to have the benefit of appropriate legal services going forward. The mother was awarded £75,000 in respect of past costs as the solicitors would not continue acting for her without her outstanding costs being cleared, and due to some of the figures being high. The mother would also use some of her own resources to make payment. £65,000 was ordered for the mother’s future CA 1989 proceedings as the judge was satisfied that the mother would not be able to reasonably secure appropriate legal services from now up to and including the DRA. The total sum for the CA 1989 proceedings was therefore £140,000.

The mother sought her costs for the hearing, amounting to £25,320 due to the father not making any offers to settle, therefore making the hearing necessary. These were considered excessive. Of these costs, the judge made a costs order against the father in the sum of £15,000.