Met v Hat

Where jurisdiction to determine matrimonial status or grant financial relief is seriously uncertain, interim financial provision must be approached with great caution. Maintenance pending suit should be confined to relieving a genuine predicament of need where the underlying claim may be barred by res judicata, estoppel or lack of jurisdiction. The court may consider the apparent strength of the jurisdictional claim and the subject matter and merits of the proceedings when deciding whether to make a legal services payment order. Child support remains separately available and should reflect the children’s established standard of living and the resources realistically available to the parent.

The wife sought short-term financial provision for herself and the parties’ two children pending a further hearing. The husband relied on a foreign talaq and on an earlier dismissal of the wife’s petition following a preliminary issue hearing. The court considered whether the foreign divorce was likely to be recognised, whether the earlier order created res judicata or estoppel, and whether the wife’s subsequent petition and claims for financial relief could properly proceed. The immediate issue was the appropriate interim support for the wife and children, together with any contribution towards legal costs.

1. Jurisdictional uncertainty and interim relief. The court accepted that it possessed power to award maintenance pending suit even where jurisdiction to pronounce a decree was challenged, as recognised in Moses-Taiga [2005] EWCA Civ 1013. That power had to be exercised with very considerable caution where the jurisdictional foundation was doubtful.
2. The court was entitled to assess provisionally the strength of the claim that jurisdiction existed. The greater the uncertainty, the greater the caution required. The earlier dismissal of the wife’s petition, following a hearing fixed to determine recognition of the foreign divorce, gave the husband a strong res judicata case. The wife also faced a substantial delay and a possible estoppel in pursuing a third petition.
3. Following the approach described in Z v Z [1992] 2 FLR 291, maintenance pending suit for the wife should be awarded only to relieve a real predicament of need in these circumstances. No such need was established. No maintenance pending suit was awarded.
4. No legal services payment order was made. Under s.22ZB(1)(c), the court could consider the subject matter of the proceedings, consistently with Currey v Currey [2007] 1 FLR 946. The court was extremely doubtful about the merits of the wife’s personal claims and therefore made no costs allowance for them.
5. The children were entitled to support reflecting the family’s high standard of living and the husband’s substantial resources, rather than merely his asserted pension income. The court ordered £20,000 per month for the period to the next hearing, £50,000 for past child-maintenance work, and payment of the children’s next-term school fees. No further award was made for extra tuition.