MG v GM [2022] EWFC 81 March 2022

Published: 11/03/2022 09:00

MPS and LSPO application by W in a case described by Peel J as 'a battle royale' ([3]). Each party denied holding liquid assets, and asserted the other had access to significant wealth. Peel J decided that in these circumstances he must be circumspect. It was directly relevant that W had provided a full run of bank statements whereas H had not, which made it more difficult to accept his case at face value. H had not discharged the burden of demonstrating he could not unlock liquidity and the court found he was able to meet an award.

Taking a broad Purba approach to W’s 'grossly exaggerated' budget, she was awarded £250,000 pa general maintenance plus rental costs, backdated to the date of the application. The court declined to order sums to cover expenditure prior to her application, where W had elected to borrow funds rather than make an application and to spend excessively. W was awarded historic unpaid costs less those referable to the parties’ Hague Convention proceedings (noting Mostyn J had rejected a similar claim in Rubin) and applying a 30% reduction to reflect a notional standard basis assessment. Future Children Act 1989 costs were largely stayed until contemplated mediation is completed.

©2023 Class Legal
Class Legal


Share this

    Most read