The Family Court at Liverpool refused a former husband's application for a legal services payment order in financial remedy proceedings, citing the hurdles facing his claim and concerns about his disclosure.
Key facts
- Who: A former husband (AGS) and former wife (RKS) in financial remedy proceedings; the judgment is anonymised to protect the family.
- From: Judgment date 13 April 2026
- Source: AGS v RKS [2026] EWFC 104 (B)
The Family Court at Liverpool, in a reserved judgment cited as [2026] EWFC 104 (B), considered an application by AGS for maintenance pending suit (MPS) and a legal services payment order (LSPO). The judgment is anonymised and the parties appear only as AGS (the applicant) and RKS (the respondent).
Background
The parties married on 3 June 2015, have three children and divorced on 29 June 2018. AGS says they never in reality separated and did so only in May 2025. RKS also says they separated in May 2025.
AGS says he served a prison sentence for "mortgage fraud" between February 2016 and May 2018. The judge noted that he had not provided a record of his conviction. A Crown Court confiscation order under section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 put the benefit from the offending at £1,407,503.51 and the amount to be paid at £506,395.53. It was factually accepted that RKS bought out AGS's interest in the family home to satisfy that order.
The question
The hearing on 12 March 2026 could not determine the MPS and LSPO applications, because further evidence was needed. The judge was asked to deal with a lump sum towards costs. The question for this decision was whether to make an LSPO to fund a hearing to decide whether there should be MPS, and a further LSPO to fund the case up to and including the financial dispute resolution (FDR) hearing.
The decision
The judge refused the LSPO, concluding that AGS faces substantial hurdles in making out his substantive claim.
The reasoning
- The judge accepted that a marriage cannot be said to have continued after divorce, whatever the level of contact, so it was difficult to see any evidence of matrimonial acquest. AGS would have to establish need.
- If AGS recovered capital, the Crown Prosecution Service was likely to pursue the difference under the confiscation order. He would need to recover at least £901,000 to gain personally, and the judge said the likelihood of this was limited.
- The judge was not satisfied that AGS had given full, frank and clear disclosure, including about the confiscation proceedings and his business interests. He had called the order a "civil POCA", which the judge said was untruthful because it was a Crown Court order.
- The steps AGS took to avoid court proceedings were described as far too limited.
- RKS is legally represented but said she could not afford to continue if required to pay AGS. She did not appear to have any realisable funds available at that point and would need to borrow.
- RKS alleges domestic abuse. The judge said no finding could be made on that at this interim stage, and that no factual findings had yet been made about the relationship.
What this means for people in financial remedy proceedings
In this case the court weighed the strength of the claim, the applicant's disclosure and conduct, the steps taken to avoid proceedings, and the effect of an order on the paying party. The reasons given are specific to these facts and the interim stage of the case. Anyone facing a similar application should get advice before any deadline passes.
Sources
- AGS v RKS [2026] EWFC 104 (B), Family Court at Liverpool: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/104