In ST v NT [2026] EWFC 171, the Family Court held that a husband who resisted disclosing company account statements could afford interim maintenance above the £5,000 a month he was paying his wife.
Key facts
- Who: The husband and wife in one divorce financial remedy case, where the family's finances were bound up with a technology business
- From: Judgment date, 2 July 2026
- Source: ST v NT (Maintenance Pending Suit), [2026] EWFC 171
On 2 July 2026 Mr Justice Macdonald gave judgment in the Family Court, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, after a hearing on 26 June 2026. The case is anonymised. The parties are referred to as the wife (ST) and the husband (NT).
Background
The couple married in 2008 and have two children, who live with the wife and spend time with the husband. The wife petitioned for divorce on 10 February 2026. No Conditional Order had been made. She applied for a financial remedy on 23 February 2026, and the case was allocated to a High Court level judge.
The husband founded and runs a technology business. He said its turnover had fallen from £100M in 2023 to about £57M in 2026. He paid the wife £5,000 a month in approved drawings from the business. The business paid some costs directly, including medical insurance, school fees and mobile phones.
The question
At the first directions appointment, the court also had to decide the wife's application for maintenance pending suit (MPS): interim financial support while the proceedings continue.
The decision
The judge was satisfied that the husband could afford an increased MPS figure. The judge also found that the marital standard of living supported an award significantly above the current drawings.
The reasoning
The judge said the family finances were "inextricably bound up" with the business. The husband had maintained, up to and during the hearing, that he should not have to disclose credit card or bank statements for company accounts used to fund family spending, because the Form E does not ordinarily require company accounts. The judge said it was inappropriate to resist proportionate disclosure on that ground. The court must look to the reality of the position within the marriage and comply with the spirit, as well as the letter, of the Form E.
In those circumstances, the judge held that the court could draw robust assumptions about the husband's ability to pay and was not confined to his account of his resources. The judge did not accept that he could not fund more than £5,000 a month.
The husband's Form E said cashflow had fallen from a positive £1.62M to a negative £2.61M, and that revenue was predicted to contract further. No evidence was produced to corroborate these assertions. He had, however, funded the wife's credit cards by £35,000 over three months and paid for travel and club membership. His declared net income was £32,000 a year against an expenditure budget of £65,980, a position the judge described as opaque.
On standard of living, the judge found the parties had a high standard during the marriage. That standard is an important measure of what is reasonable, but it does not mean simply replicating the position during the marriage.
What this means for people in divorce proceedings
- In this case, the court looked at the reality of how family spending was funded through a business, not only at the literal requirements of the Form E.
- The court found the husband's disclosure deficient and, on that basis, drew robust assumptions about his ability to pay.
- The decision turned on the facts of this couple's finances.
Sources
- ST v NT (Maintenance Pending Suit) [2026] EWFC 171, Family Court, 2 July 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/171