EM v AK

In financial remedy proceedings, interim maintenance may be ordered where the applicant has limited income and cannot presently access available capital. The court may provide that payments are treated as being on account of, or otherwise taken into account in, the final award. A renewed application for legal funding should not reopen costs previously determined by the court. The relevant question is whether, after the earlier order is implemented, the applicant can fund appropriate legal services for the period properly in issue. Existing disclosure orders should be maintained where the information remains necessary for the substantive proceedings.

This was a hearing in contested financial remedy proceedings concerning applications by the wife for maintenance pending suit and a Legal Services Order under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The parties had been married for a short period, had no children and had assets valued at approximately £3.1 million. A previous hearing before King J had resulted in an order for approximately £40,200 towards the anticipated costs of a preliminary hearing, together with disclosure directions.

The preliminary hearing was vacated after the husband and his son conceded, for the purposes of the proceedings, that assets in the husband’s name were beneficially his. The issues were whether further interim maintenance and legal funding should be ordered, and whether existing freezing, disclosure and valuation arrangements should be varied.

1. Maintenance pending suit. The wife’s limited income, the practical difficulty of accessing her capital and the husband’s recognition that she should receive substantial financial provision justified an order for maintenance of £3,000 per month. The court directed that the payments could, as appropriate, be treated as payments on account of, or otherwise taken into account in, the final financial award.
2. Legal Services Order. Section 22ZA(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 prevents an order unless the court is satisfied that, without it, the applicant could not reasonably obtain appropriate legal services. The earlier order was expressly directed to the costs of the subsequently vacated three-day hearing. The wife’s attempt to obtain further funding for earlier bills, including costs already addressed, would improperly reopen that issue. The proper question was whether, after receipt of the earlier sum, she could fund legal services up to the financial dispute resolution hearing. She could do so, having regard to the remaining balance, her modest liquid resources and the maintenance order. No further Legal Services Order was therefore made.
3. Further directions. The husband was ordered to sign the authority needed to release the earlier funding, with provision for signature on his behalf in default. The existing disclosure orders were continued because the information remained necessary for the substantive financial remedy proceedings. No variation of the freezing order was made apart from permitting the monthly maintenance withdrawals. No further valuation or disclosure orders were made.