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.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Family News

Monumental Supreme Court decision on matrimonialisation and sharing principle (Standish v Standish)

Family analysis: The Supreme Court’s much-anticipated judgment confirms unequivocally that the sharing principle does not apply to non-matrimonial property. Sharing of matrimonial property will usually be 50:50, though there may be a departure from equal division where justified. Non-matrimonial property typically has either a pre-marital origin, or, where it is received during the currency of the marriage, an external source (eg an inheritance). Title to an asset is expressly not determinative as to whether that asset is or is not matrimonial. Though non-matrimonial property may become matrimonial (ie ‘matrimonialisation’) this will depend on how the parties have been dealing with the asset and whether, over time, they have been treating that asset as shared between them. The concept of matrimonialisation is to be applied neither ‘widely’ nor ‘narrowly’ (contrary to what the Court of Appeal had held)—again, the enquiry should focus on how the parties have dealt with the asset. Where an asset is transferred from one spouse to another with the intention to save tax (as had occurred in the case), this will not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the decision to dismiss the wife’s appeal, though it did not wholly agree with the Court of Appeal’s reasoning. Pursuant to that decision (made on the sharing basis) the wife would be provided with circa £25m of the total assets figure of circa £132.6m, being half of the matrimonial assets figure of £50.48m. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the judgment.

View Family by content type :

Popular documents