DH v RH

DH v RH

The wife would not reasonably be able to obtain appropriate legal services without an LSPO, but the order should be limited to future costs and not include historic costs owed to current or former solicitors, as there was no sworn evidence that her solicitors would refuse to act if only future costs were covered. The wife is entitled to MPS reflecting her reasonable immediate needs, but her proposed budget was excessive and was reduced by the court to a reasonable level based on current circumstances and available resources.

Parties
Applicant: DH; Respondent: RH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Financial Remedy Proceedings (divorce) / Interlocutory Applications for Legal Services Payment Order (lspo) and Maintenance Pending Suit (mps)
Outcome
Applications for LSPO and MPS granted in part.
Legal Topics
Legal Services Payment Order (lspo), Maintenance Pending Suit (mps), Financial Remedies, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Costs in Family Proceedings
Family Law Legal Services Payment Order (lspo) Maintenance Pending Suit (mps) Financial Remedies Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Costs in Family Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DH

Applicant

RH

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Financial Remedy Proceedings (divorce) / Interlocutory Applications for Legal Services Payment Order (lspo) and Maintenance Pending Suit (mps)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant wife should be granted a Legal Services Payment Order (LSPO) for future legal costs and/or historic legal costs
  2. 2 Whether the applicant wife should be granted Maintenance Pending Suit (MPS) and at what level

Ratio Decidendi

The wife would not reasonably be able to obtain appropriate legal services without an LSPO, but the order should be limited to future costs and not include historic costs owed to current or former solicitors, as there was no sworn evidence that her solicitors would refuse to act if only future costs were covered. The wife is entitled to MPS reflecting her reasonable immediate needs, but her proposed budget was excessive and was reduced by the court to a reasonable level based on current circumstances and available resources.

Court Disposition

Applications for LSPO and MPS granted in part.

Orders

  • LSPO granted for future legal costs only, staged as £221,654 to PTR and £151,000 in two further instalments after PTR, subject to review at PTR; no provision for historic costs owed to Withers or Burgess Mee.
  • MPS granted at £18,762 per month (£141,154 per annum plus £84,000 rent), with additional provision for educational support and reasonable moving costs; husband to pay health insurance premiums and educational expenses as specified.