When ultra-high-net-worth couples divorce, the legal battles aren’t just about the final financial settlement—they’re also about how much one party should receive in the interim. The case of SM v BA [2025] EWFC 28 saw the court awarding the wife £29,750 per month in maintenance pending suit (MPS), despite the husband describing her application as “rapacious” and “full of errors.”

This case provides an important reminder of the legal test for MPS, how the courts balance fairness, needs, and the marital standard of living, and why interim awards should not be viewed as a “mini final hearing.”

What Is Maintenance Pending Suit?

Maintenance pending suit (MPS) is a temporary financial order made under section 22 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. It is designed to provide one party with reasonable maintenance while divorce and financial remedy proceedings are ongoing.

MPS is often sought in cases where one party controls the wealth and the other does not have immediate access to funds. It is particularly important in high-net-worth cases where lifestyle expectations and financial commitments are significant.

The Legal Test for MPS

The law on MPS is well established. The key principles come from TL v ML & Others [2006] 1 FLR 1263, where Mostyn J (then QC) summarised the test:

  1. The sole criterion is “reasonableness”, which is synonymous with fairness.
  2. The marital standard of living is a very important factor, though this does not mean the court will simply replicate it.
  3. A specific MPS budget should be provided, which should exclude capital or long-term expenses best dealt with at the final hearing.
  4. If disclosure is inadequate, the court can make “robust assumptions” about a party’s ability to pay and err in favour of the applicant.
  5. Where a party has historically been supported by third-party wealth, the court may assume that this support will continue, at least until the final hearing.

These principles were later refined in Rattan v Kuwad [2021] 2 FLR 817, where the Court of Appeal confirmed:

  • The focus is on immediate needs—but “immediate” does not mean “emergency-only” provision.
  • The marital standard of living remains relevant but does not have to be fully replicated.
  • The approach to MPS should be flexible, reflecting the circumstances of the case.

SM v BA: A Clash Over £29,750 Per Month

The Background

  • The wife (SM) sought £43,995 per month plus the payment of various household and family costs, totalling nearly £700,000 per year.
  • The husband (BA) argued that £24,438 per month was more appropriate, claiming that the wife’s demands were exaggerated.
  • The court had previously ordered interim maintenance of £29,500 per month, but the wife now sought an increase due to alleged additional costs.

Key Issues Before the Court

  1. What level of maintenance was “reasonable” on an interim basis?
  2. Should the previous agreement of £29,500 per month be upheld or revised?
  3. Was the husband’s financial disclosure adequate?
  4. Did the wife’s claims amount to forensic exaggeration?

The Court’s Decision

  1. Maintenance Set at £29,750 Per Month

The court ordered the husband to pay £29,750 per month, only a small increase from the previous £29,500 per month.

Key factors in this decision:

  • The marital standard of living was “clearly very high,” even if both parties had slightly exaggerated or downplayed its extent.
  • The amount was close to the level already agreed between the parties, reducing the need for major revision.
  • The wife’s budget contained some forensic exaggeration, but the court did not accept the husband’s argument that her claims were excessive across the board.
  1. No Automatic Replication of Marital Lifestyle

The court rejected the idea that MPS should automatically maintain the exact same standard of living. Instead, it emphasised that the award should be fair and reasonable based on the available resources.

This reflects the principle from M v M (Maintenance Pending Suit) [2002] 2 FLR 123, where Charles J stated that the court must not simply replicate the status quo but should instead assess what is reasonable in all the circumstances.

  1. Robust Assumptions About the Husband’s Wealth

The husband argued that he could not afford more than £24,438 per month and disputed the inclusion of certain dividend income in his financial resources.

The court, however, found that:

  • The husband’s disclosure was incomplete, meaning the court was entitled to draw robust assumptions about his wealth.
  • There were “additional monies” available to the husband through family business interests, which he had not fully disclosed.
  • The husband’s past payments of £29,500 per month suggested affordability, despite his argument that it was too high.

This follows the principle from MG v GM (MPS: LSPO) [2023] 1 FLR 253, where Peel J stated that the court can make reasonable inferences when faced with incomplete disclosure.

Key Lessons for Family Law Practitioners

  1. MPS Is About Holding the Financial Ring, Not Deciding the Final Outcome
  • The purpose of MPS is to keep things stable until the final hearing.
  • Clients should be advised not to overreach, as forensic exaggeration may weaken their credibility.
  • Equally, the paying party should be cautious about downplaying their wealth, as courts can draw adverse inferences.
  1. The Marital Standard of Living Matters—But It’s Not Absolute
  • Courts will consider the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage, but that does not mean a blank cheque.
  • Adjustments may be made based on available resources and the need for fairness.
  1. Full and Frank Disclosure Is Critical
  • If a party fails to provide clear disclosure, courts may err in favour of the applicant.
  • Hiding assets or claiming financial difficulty without clear evidence can backfire.
  1. Previous Agreements Are Persuasive
  • If parties previously agreed on a maintenance figure, it can be difficult to argue for a major change without strong justification.
  • Courts will consider whether circumstances have actually changed since the last agreement.

Final Thoughts: A Case of Careful Balance

The decision in SM v BA [2025] EWFC 28 reinforces that MPS is a temporary solution, designed to balance the needs of both parties without pre-judging the final financial settlement. The award of £29,750 per month shows that courts take a pragmatic, rather than rigid, approach—ensuring that immediate needs are met without necessarily replicating the exact marital lifestyle.

For family lawyers, this case is a reminder to carefully construct interim applications, ensuring that:

  • Budgets are realistic and well-evidenced.
  • The marital standard of living is factored in—but not overstated.
  • Clients are advised against financial posturing, as courts will scrutinise disclosure carefully.
facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterPost on X
Published by James Thornton in Blog
Tags: case law, maintenance pending suit, mps, sm v ba 2025, tl v ml 2006