R v R

Interim financial provision is governed by reasonableness, assessed in all the circumstances. The marital standard of living is an important factor, but the court need not replicate it exactly. An interim budget must be scrutinised to exclude exaggeration and items more appropriately dealt with at final hearing.

A legal services provision order under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 s 22ZA may cover costs incurred in ongoing proceedings, including some historic costs, where doing so is reasonably necessary to secure appropriate future legal services. The jurisdiction is not a substitute for an inter partes costs jurisdiction. The court must balance the applicant’s need for effective representation against fairness to the other party, while considering the subject matter and prospects of the proceedings.

The parties were recently separated spouses involved in extensive financial and children proceedings in England, while the wife challenged the jurisdiction and relied on a post-nuptial agreement made in State A. The husband applied for interim maintenance, including housing and living expenses, and for a legal services provision order.

The court determined those two applications only. It considered the parties’ competing evidence about their marital standard of living, the husband’s interim needs, the wife’s ability to pay, the unresolved jurisdictional issues and the effect of existing legal costs on the husband’s ability to maintain representation.

1. Interim maintenance. Applying the principles drawn from TL v ML & Ors [2005] EWHC 2860 (Fam), the sole criterion was reasonableness, synonymous with fairness. The marital standard of living was relevant but did not require exact replication. The court had to examine the budget critically, exclude forensic exaggeration and avoid determining capital or long-term expenditure prematurely.
2. The court placed limited weight on a rental letter that did not comply with Family Procedure Rules 2010 Pt 25. It assessed housing by comparing the available properties and ordered £11,000 per month. It allowed £9,000 per month for other income needs, taking account of the evidence of family spending, the lockdown, the husband’s current circumstances and the need to preserve a reasonable balance while jurisdiction remained unresolved.
3. The total interim provision was therefore £20,000 per month from 1 February 2021, with rental-deposit provision on account of the husband’s eventual entitlement. No further interim capital provision was justified apart from £1,000 for dental treatment and associated set-up costs.
4. Legal services provision. Section 22ZA of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 required the court to be satisfied that, without the payment, the husband could not reasonably obtain appropriate legal services. The court adopted the reasoning in BC v DE [2016] EWHC 1806 (Fam): outstanding costs incurred within ongoing proceedings may affect the reasonable availability of future representation.
5. Rubin v Rubin [2014] EWHC 611 (Fam) was explained as addressing the forward-looking statutory question, rather than establishing an inflexible rule excluding historic costs. The court also considered the caution in LKH v TQA AL Z [2018] EWHC 1214 (Fam), while recognising that the facts and existing debt could justify provision for some past costs.
6. The wife was ordered to provide £200,000 towards the husband’s outstanding costs and £150,000 per month for five months, totalling £750,000 including VAT. No provision was made for costs owed to the former solicitors because their discharge was not reasonably required to secure appropriate ongoing services.