The High Court's decision in HA v EN provides essential guidance on applications for Maintenance Pending Suit (MPS) and Legal Services Payment Orders (LSPOs) in high-net-worth divorce proceedings. The judgment offers valuable insights into the interplay between interim maintenance, disclosure obligations, and the procedural expectations for securing legal funding during financial disputes.

Case Overview: HA v EN

The case centred on a wife’s applications for MPS and an LSPO. She argued that her husband, a wealthy entrepreneur, had failed to provide adequate financial support during the proceedings and had not fully disclosed his assets.

Key Issues:

1. MPS Application:
   The wife requested £12,000 per month to meet her immediate living expenses, citing the husband’s alleged wealth and her financial dependence.
2. LSPO Application:
   She sought a substantial sum to cover her unpaid legal fees and future litigation costs, asserting that she could not secure alternative funding.
3. Disclosure Gaps:
   The husband’s financial disclosure was challenged for being inconsistent, particularly regarding the true value of his business interests.

Key Findings

1. Maintenance Pending Suit (MPS):

• Pragmatic Award:
  Despite the wife’s failure to provide a detailed budget, the court awarded her £12,000 per month, emphasising a “broad-brush approach” to interim support.
• Rejection of “Unless Order”:
  The wife’s attempt to seek an “unless order” requiring the husband to pay or face procedural penalties was dismissed. The court clarified that MPS orders must remain straightforward and cannot extend to new procedural remedies.

2. Legal Services Payment Order (LSPO):

• Application Standards:
  The court evaluated the wife’s LSPO application under Sections 22ZA and 22ZB of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, focusing on whether she could access alternative funding and the reasonableness of her request.
• Award Granted:
  Recognising the wife’s inability to pay her legal fees and the husband’s capacity to contribute, the court approved a significant LSPO.

3. Disclosure Assumptions:

The court highlighted its power to make “robust assumptions” when disclosure is inadequate. The husband’s lack of transparency regarding his business valuations led the court to adopt a cautious approach favouring the wife.

Guidance for MPS and LSPO Applications

1. Maintenance Pending Suit (MPS):

• Prepare a Detailed Budget:
  While the court can adopt a broad approach, applicants should submit a clear and realistic interim budget to support their claims.
• Focus on Immediate Needs:
  MPS is designed to meet basic living expenses during proceedings. Ensure that claims reflect reasonable and immediate requirements.
• Avoid Procedural Overreach:
  Innovative remedies, such as “unless orders,” may be rejected if they fall outside established statutory frameworks.

2. Legal Services Payment Orders (LSPOs):

• Demonstrate Lack of Alternatives:
  Applicants must show they cannot secure litigation funding from other sources, such as loans or family contributions.
• Justify the Amount:
  Requests should detail how the funds will be spent, with a focus on proportionality to the case’s complexity.
• Highlight Reasonableness:
  Ensure the requested amount aligns with the applicant’s financial needs and the respondent’s ability to pay.

3. Address Disclosure Early:

Non-disclosure can complicate proceedings and lead to adverse assumptions. Parties should be encouraged to provide full and frank disclosure from the outset.

Lessons from HA v EN

The judgment reinforces several critical principles:

• Transparency is Key: Non-disclosure can significantly influence interim awards and broader financial outcomes.
• Broad Judicial Discretion: Courts balance fairness with practicality, especially when immediate support or legal funding is required.
• Flexibility in Interim Relief: While the court can adapt its approach, well-prepared applications remain essential to achieving favourable outcomes.

Conclusion

HA v EN highlights the complexities of securing interim financial relief in high-net-worth divorces. By focusing on transparency, realistic claims, and procedural rigor, practitioners can navigate MPS and LSPO applications more effectively. This case serves as a reminder of the courts’ commitment to fairness while maintaining a practical approach to financial disputes.