Maintenance pending suit and legal services orders

Maintenance pending suit

Periodical payments ordered before the determination of the ‘suit’ (ie divorce, nullity or judicial separation proceedings) to cover the interim position, are called maintenance pending suit (or in the context of proceedings under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004), maintenance pending outcome of proceedings). The court may only order a party to pay maintenance pending suit/outcome of proceedings to the other party until those proceedings are determined. If the financial remedy application has not been concluded by the time a final order/decree of divorce, dissolution or nullity or a (judicial) separation order is made, interim periodical payments (‘interim maintenance’) may also be ordered until it is completed. A combined order with provision for maintenance pending suit and interim periodical payments after final order/decree absolute will avoid the need for multiple applications.

The court’s main focus will likely be on the applicant’s immediate and interim needs but the only criterion set out in section 22 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973)/CPA 2004, Sch 5 Pt 8, para 38 is reasonableness, which will be highly

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Acquiring parental responsibility under section 4(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989—non-biological fathers (KL v BA)

Family analysis: In KL v BA the court considered whether the effect of a declaration of non-parentage in respect of a man who was not married to a child's mother and was named on the child's birth certificate as the father, but whom subsequent genetic testing showed was not the child's biological father, was to render his putative acquisition of parental responsibility under section 4(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) void ab initio, or whether he had and retained parental responsibility that could only be removed by order of the court. Aimee Jones, senior associate at Sternberg Reed considers the decision.

Family weekly highlights—6 February 2025

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of guidance from the Family Justice Council for legal practitioners working with neurodivergent users of the family justice system, additional funding for the pathfinder courts pilot scheme and the extension of the family mediation voucher scheme. Recent judgments including the Court of Appeal’s decision to reverse the anonymisation of family court judges, consideration of overseas adoption and maintenance pending suit and legal service payment orders are also considered. Three new Practice Notes on financial provision for children over 18 are also set out.

Habeas corpus in Care proceedings (Care orders and the limits of habeas corpus (The Father v Worcestershire County Council)

Family analysis: The Supreme Court was concerned with the question of whether habeas corpus can be used as a remedy where children are placed in foster care via a care order and whether the making of a care order results in ‘detention’. On considering the primary legislation relating to care orders and the legislative regime which establishes the Family Court, neither contain clear words excluding habeas corpus, however the Supreme Court decided that there are other reasons why habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge a care order and highlighted the appropriate routes of appeal. Teertha Gupta KC at 4PB examines the issues.

Family court judges’ anonymisation reversed by Court of Appeal (Tickle & Summers v BBC and others)

Family analysis: The murder of ten-year-old Sara Sharif by her father and step-mother continues to dominate the UK news. Following her death, journalists (Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers) and major news organisations sought disclosure of documents and information from the historical Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) proceedings concerning Sara and her siblings, including the relevant judges’ names. Despite the judges involved in those proceedings having made no application in respect of their own anonymity, Mr Justice Williams nonetheless included in his disclosure order a provision that their names were not to be published. The appeals against Williams J’s decision were successful on each of the three grounds advanced. He had lacked jurisdiction to order the judges’ anonymisation and there had been serious procedural irregularities owing to the lack of submissions and evidence on the anonymisation issue. The Court of Appeal also disapproved of the judge’s use of anecdotal material and his own experiences to try to shore up his judgment. Williams J was further criticised for his unfair treatment of the journalists and Channel 4. Publication of the judges’ names has now taken place in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s decision to ensure a short interval of seven days occurred during which time HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) was required to put in place any protective measures. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, examines the issues.