Nicholas Allen KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge. Application to increase maintenance pending suit (MPS) in ‘super-rich’ financial remedies case.

Overview

This judgment follows that in SM v BA (Legal Services Payment Order) [2025] EWFC 7 from January this year which concerned W’s application for an LSPO and MPS dated 22 May 2024. This most recent development arose after significant disagreement between the parties surrounding the basis on which W’s application for MPS had been compromised. W sought to substantially increase the MPS figure; H sought to lower it. The court refused to increase the MPS figure by any significant amount, reiterating that MPS is purely an interim measure which is not intended to maintain the standard of living, even in cases involving the super-rich.

Background

Shortly after W’s application for MPS and LSPO was made in May 2024, the parties compromised the application on the following basis:

(i) H would give an undertaking to ‘maintain the financial status quo’ in respect of family expenses;

(ii) H would pay W £29,500 pcm by way of MPS; and

(iii) W would undertake to limit the use of her credit card to ‘reasonable’ holiday expenditure.

By August 2024 there was significant disagreement as to the extent of H’s undertaking in respect of the family home/expenses. In October 2024 W therefore made a second MPS application seeking a determination of the meaning of ‘maintaining the financial status quo’.

On 6 January 2025, shortly before the hearing, W made a third application in which she filed a fresh interim budget and sought a higher maintenance sum of £43,995 pm, in addition to H meeting other family expenditure totalling £13,652 pm (a total of £57,647 pcm / £691,764 pa). It was this third application for MPS which was adjourned to the hearing on 11 February 2025 to allow H time to respond.

In response, H offered W a lower sum than agreed of £24,438 pm in addition to £11,966 pm for family expenditure (a total of £36,403 pcm / £436,836 pa).

Legal Framework

The following key cases and principles were applied:

• The judge summarised the legal framework for MPS applications, specifically drawing on the leading cases of F v F (Ancillary Relief: Substantial Assets) [1995] 2 FLR 45; G v G (Maintenance Pending Suit: Legal Costs) [2002] 3 FCR 339, and M v M (Maintenance Pending Suit) [2002] 2 FLR 123.
• MPS is to meet ‘immediate’ and ‘reasonable’ needs and that does not mean that the status quo should be maintained, even in cases concerning the super-rich.
• The judge reiterated that a calculation does not have to be precise (unless the court has the ability to undertake such a calculation) and often would be ‘rough and ready’ (quoting Coleridge J in Moore v Moore [2010] 1 FLR 1413 at [22]).
• As per TL v ML and Others (Ancillary Relief: Claim Against Assets of Extended Family) [2006] 1 FLR 1263, where disclosure by the payer was ‘obviously deficient’ the court may make ‘robust assumptions’ about their ability to pay.
• The court considered the principles in Rubin v Rubin [2014] 2 FLR 1018 and CPR 44.2(4) in relation to costs.

Application

H’s income

The judge undertook a comprehensive analysis of H’s income position, which was hotly disputed. W sought to assert a salary of £4m pa whilst H argued that a number of company shares were held beneficially by H’s father and his salary was substantially lower (£700,000 pa).

The judge concluded that H’s disclosure overall was ‘voluminous’ and could not be considered to be ‘obviously deficient’. However, in relation to one aspect of his disclosure, namely whether there were monies standing to H’s credit, the judge agreed to make robust assumptions (albeit he could not be certain as to figure or bracket of the additional monies).

Overall, the judge found H’s income on an interim basis to be £900,000 pa (plus an unknown credit balance).

W’s interim needs

The judge was critical of W’s interim budget which had increased certain figures from her Form E budget filed only a few months earlier. Therefore, H’s interim figures were preferred, and W’s budget was reduced to £500,807 pa.

Judgment

The judge rejected W’s argument that she had only recently become aware of the financial landscape, and refused to depart significantly from the sum agreed by the parties in May 2024. The judge therefore ordered H to pay W £29,750 pcm in addition to the £143,759 pa which H offered to pay directly towards family expenses.

On the basis that the figure ordered was close to that already being paid following the agreement in May 2024, the judge refused to backdate the figure.

W also sought a reimbursement for sums which H had deducted from monies paid to her since May 2024. The judge refused to do so on the basis that the sums (which were asserted to total £20,000) were ‘de minimis’ in the context of the case and H had argued that the sums had either been agreed or were as a result of W’s unreasonable expenditure on the credit card.

Costs

LSPO

The judge also dealt with W’s costs for the LSPO application, determined at the hearing in January. W sought costs for her LSPO application to be summarily assessed on an indemnity basis in the sum of £44,081. H sought no order as to costs.

W had won the application; H had made no offer until the day before the hearing and at a sum materially less than what was ordered. However, the conduct of the parties did nothing to take the case ‘out of the norm’ such as to justify ordering costs on an indemnity basis and the judge therefore applied an additional reduction of 15%.

H was ordered to pay 85% of 80% of the costs sought by W on a standard basis (i.e. £29,975 inclusive of VAT and disbursements).

MPS

The costs of the MPS were due to be dealt with at a later hearing on 2 April 2025. The court reiterated its concerns about the costs trajectory in the case.