SM v BA (No 2: Maintenance Pending Suit) [2025] EWFC 28 (19 February 2025)
The reasonable and fair figure for maintenance pending suit is £29,750 per month, reflecting the marital standard of living, immediate needs, and the parties' historic financial arrangements, but not simply replicating the status quo or the applicant's claimed budget. The respondent's disclosure was not obviously deficient except in one area, justifying a robust assumption of additional available funds, but not to the extent claimed by the applicant. Backdating and reimbursement of deductions are not justified. The applicant is entitled to costs of the LSPO application, summarily assessed.
- Citation
- [2025] EWFC 28
- Parties
- Applicant: SM; Respondent: BA
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 19 February 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Family Law Maintenance Pending Suit / Interim Application for Maintenance Pending Suit (mps) and Costs of LSPO Application
- Outcome
- Application for maintenance pending suit granted in part; costs of LSPO application awarded to applicant.
- Legal Topics
- Maintenance Pending Suit, Interim Financial Relief, Legal Services Payment Order, Standard of Living, Reasonableness, Costs
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
SM
Applicant
BA
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Family Law Maintenance Pending Suit / Interim Application for Maintenance Pending Suit (mps) and Costs of LSPO Application
Legal Issues
- 1 What is the reasonable amount for maintenance pending suit (MPS) in the context of high net worth parties?
- 2 How should the marital standard of living and immediate needs be assessed for interim maintenance?
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to backdating or reimbursement of deductions?
Ratio Decidendi
The reasonable and fair figure for maintenance pending suit is £29,750 per month, reflecting the marital standard of living, immediate needs, and the parties' historic financial arrangements, but not simply replicating the status quo or the applicant's claimed budget. The respondent's disclosure was not obviously deficient except in one area, justifying a robust assumption of additional available funds, but not to the extent claimed by the applicant. Backdating and reimbursement of deductions are not justified. The applicant is entitled to costs of the LSPO application, summarily assessed.
Court Disposition
Application for maintenance pending suit granted in part; costs of LSPO application awarded to applicant.
Orders
- Respondent to pay applicant maintenance pending suit of £29,750 per month, with specified expenditure to be paid directly by respondent.
- No backdating of the order; no arrears payable.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment