MET v HAT (No.2)

At the interim stage, maintenance pending suit and a legal services payment order are intended to hold the ring and secure reasonable living expenses and equality of arms until final determination. The court should not ordinarily treat alleged reckless dissipation of funds as available resources when fixing such interim awards, even where the allegation may be relevant at the final hearing. Where a payer’s financial disclosure is obviously deficient, the court may make robust assumptions about ability to pay and should err in favour of the payee. The court may revise an interim assessment when expert evidence materially changes the apparent merits of an issue affecting jurisdiction or relief.

The wife sought interim maintenance and litigation funding in proceedings involving the recognition in England of divorces pronounced by the husband in his home country. The court’s earlier assessment had treated a triple talaq as likely to be a valid non-proceedings divorce, limiting the wife’s prospects of relief under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. Revised expert evidence indicated that the single talaq pronounced before a judge was likely to be the effective proceedings divorce. The court reconsidered the interim position, examined both parties’ financial disclosure and alleged dissipation, and determined the appropriate maintenance and costs orders.

1. Revised merits assessment. The revised expert evidence materially altered the court’s view. There was now a strong case that the single talaq was the effective proceedings divorce and entitled to recognition in England. Subject to the jurisdictional requirements in s.15 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, the wife had a strong case for leave under Part III, particularly if her claim were confined to maintenance.
2. Interim awards and dissipation. Maintenance pending suit is intended to hold the ring and enable the claimant to live reasonably pending final determination. A legal services payment order is intended to secure access to justice and equality of arms. Both orders remain adjustable at the final hearing. Alleged reckless dissipation should not be taken into account when fixing either interim award, although it may be relevant at the final hearing.
3. Ability to pay. Applying the principles in TL v ML [2006] 1 FLR 1263, particularly the principle permitting robust assumptions where disclosure is obviously deficient, the court rejected the husband’s asserted limited stipend and inferred a substantially greater ability to pay.
4. Orders. The husband was ordered to pay £33,166 per month for the wife and children from 1 March 2014, and £11,000 per month towards the wife’s litigation costs until February 2015 or the FDR, if earlier. A further £10,000 per month was conditional on the husband pursuing litigation about the triple talaq. The earlier £50,000 costs contribution was stayed pending resolution of the costs dispute and any detailed assessment.

The judgment followed an earlier interim judgment delivered on 16 December 2013 in the same proceedings. No appeal history is stated.