Family court rules on interim maintenance and legal costs

27 Jan 2025Court Report

Family Court grants interim maintenance and legal costs in high-profile divorce case

Overview of the Case

The Family Court, presided over by Mr Justin Warshaw KC, delivered a judgment on 20 January 2025 concerning an application for maintenance pending suit (MPS) and a legal services payment order (LSPO) in the divorce proceedings between PM and RM. The case involved complex financial arrangements and allegations of undisclosed wealth.

Background

The applicant, referred to as the wife (W), and the respondent, referred to as the husband (H), were married in 2017 after cohabiting since 2015. The couple had a pre-nuptial agreement, which W claimed was signed under duress. The couple's lifestyle was described as one of extreme wealth, with a family home valued between £41.5 million and £42.5 million, and significant monthly expenses.

Financial Disputes

W sought interim maintenance and legal costs, alleging that H had greater financial resources than disclosed. The court examined H's asset schedule, which included investments and properties, and found discrepancies in his financial disclosures. The court concluded that H likely had access to more resources than he admitted.

Maintenance and Legal Costs

The court ordered H to pay W £33,410 per month in maintenance, along with other expenses such as mortgage payments and school fees. Additionally, the court granted W £60,668 towards incurred legal costs and £347,085 for future legal costs, to be paid in instalments.

Injunction Application

W's application for an injunction to prevent the sale of the family home was denied. The court found no sufficient evidence of risk to the property's dissipation. However, the court indicated that an injunction might be considered if a sale became imminent without assurances regarding the proceeds.

Directions for Future Proceedings

The court set directions for the expedition of financial remedy proceedings, including a first appointment and a final hearing. The case was allocated to Garrido J for further hearings.