The High Court (Family Division) criticised a half-day listing for an interim maintenance and legal services application in financial remedy proceedings, affecting spouses seeking such funding and their solicitors.
Key facts
- Who: Spouses in financial remedy proceedings who apply for interim maintenance or a legal services payment order (LSPO), and their solicitors
- From: Judgment dated 17 March 2026, handed down 25 March 2026
- Source: AB v CD [2026] EWHC 1504 (Fam)
In AB v CD [2026] EWHC 1504 (Fam), Cusworth J heard a wife's application for interim maintenance and legal services funding in financial remedy proceedings. The hearing took place on 11 March 2026. The application included provision for fees already incurred and for fees in linked children proceedings.
Background. The financial remedy proceedings had barely begun. Neither party had prepared a Form E, and the first appointment was listed, the judge was told, for 5 May 2026. The Form ES2 put the couple's combined wealth after a five-year marriage at between £3.5m and £5.5m. The children proceedings included an application by the father for the child's return to this jurisdiction. The application was designed to secure funds the wife said she needed to enable her to bring about that return without risk that her status here would be affected.
The listing. The case was listed for half a day, but the material was far more than that time allowed. It included a 437-page bundle, a 76-page supplemental bundle filed without permission, skeleton arguments of 20 and 15 pages, and statements running to 261 pages including exhibits. The judge said the parties were obliged to present a case that could realistically be dealt with in the time listed. They should have declined an early, inadequate slot and sought the longer time needed. He said he would likely re-list a similar case for a full day if it came before him again.
The costs claimed. The judge recorded being told by the wife's counsel that her costs across all proceedings were £175,185.20 after a little over two months. On that basis the total now sought to reach the first appointment was £367,278.20. Her solicitors said they would seek to recover the full sums from her, with interest at 2% per month.
The decision. The judge was satisfied that the wife could not presently generate funds to contribute to the fees, so the burden of providing a reasonable level of fees fell on the husband. He held that an order to pay all sums owed to her solicitors, and to make the substantial ongoing provision they sought, was neither reasonable nor affordable. He also held that the husband's offer of £20,000 in total, with nothing towards incurred costs, was completely inadequate for proceedings that were not straightforward. The only evident source of liquid funds available to the husband appeared to be the remaining proceeds of a Seller Note, of some £338,229. The interim maintenance order would become payable only once the wife returned to this jurisdiction with the child.
The reasoning. The court must do the best it can on the evidence. The level of historic costs provided must be sufficient to enable appropriate provision for the future. The judge also referred to the principle that the jurisdiction is not a surrogate inter partes costs jurisdiction.
What this means for spouses in financial remedy proceedings
- Interim funding applications are decided on the evidence available. A court may find that what a solicitor says is needed is neither reasonable nor affordable.
- Parties are expected to give a realistic time estimate and not accept a listing they know is too short.
- A court may expect a realistic early offer, and an offer set too low can lead to further costly applications.
- Papers filed without permission or at length add to the burden on the court.
Sources
- AB v CD [2026] EWHC 1504 (Fam), High Court (Family Division), Cusworth J, judgment dated 17 March 2026, handed down 25 March 2026