Court orders £750,000 payment to fund wife’s divorce legal costs

The High Court has directed a husband to pay £750,000 to fund his wife’s legal costs – but warned there will be no tolerance of any reckless spending.

Nicholas Allen KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in SM v BS (Legal Services Payment Order), told the wife that she could still be directed to repay of some of the sums he ordered to be paid.

The court heard that the wife had sought an order that her husband pay £1.1m in outstanding and estimated future legal costs. This included £241,000 for unpaid invoices and £651,000 for financial remedy proceedings. The wife also requested that the husband pay £47,000 for costs related to a maintenance hearing in which she sought to increase monthly payments from £29,500 to £34,900. That application will be heard next month.

Lawyers for the husband described the figures sought by the wife as ‘staggering’, pointing out that he had offered to match the £250,000 he was paying for his own solicitors.

The judge cited other cases where costs had been described as ‘nihilistic’ and ‘apocalyptic’ and said that at the current rate in this case, similar adjectives may be appropriate.

It was disputed by the husband that the wife would be unable to continue to be represented without an upfront payment of costs. In support of this, he said, was the fact that the wife’s lawyers had only suggested they might not continue last month. This suggestion was ‘clearly’ made with the funding application that soon followed in mind.

The husband further pointed out that the wife’s solicitors had said they would continue to act as long as unpaid sums did not exceed £300,000, so the historic costs did not need to be paid immediately.

The judge ordered that the husband pay £178,000 in relation to historic costs and £500,000 for future financial remedy costs, as well as £75,000 for proceedings to do with the family home.

‘I am satisfied that, without the amount, W would not reasonably be able to obtain appropriate legal services for the purposes of the proceedings,’ said the judge, who cautioned against leaving one side’s solicitor and client ‘beholden’ to each other by significant debt.

‘This is the figure that strikes the balance of reasonableness in this case in what is a question of funding, and not any determination of ultimate costs liability.’

In his conclusion, the judge repeated the husband’s lawyer’s submission that the wife seemed to believe she could ‘spend what she likes on this litigation, and litigate without any regard to proportionality’, knowing there would be a blank cheque to cover it.

The judge added: ‘I do not know whether this is W’s belief. If it is, it should not be.’