Divorce proceedings among ultra-high-net-worth individuals often involve intense financial disputes. Such disputes do not always focus solely on the financial outcome, but also on the interim position whilst the overall proceedings are ongoing. Senior Associate Solicitor, Alice Brett discusses these divorce and maintenance pending suit battles through a recent case study.
What is Maintenance Pending Suit?
This recent case of SM v BA concerned maintenance pending suit (MPS). MPS is the interim financial support paid by one spouse to the other while the divorce is ongoing.
The payments are generally made regularly (usually monthly), and are used to assist one party with their day-to-day living expenses. A maintenance pending suit order is not designed to meet the outgoings of any children of the family; rather it is in relation to the spouse only.
The case of SM v BA was heard on 11 February 2025 before Mr. Nicholas Allen KC, and sheds light on how courts navigate these disputes, balancing fairness, financial necessity, and procedural propriety.
The Dispute: Excessive or justified?
At the heart of the case was a dispute over whether £29,500 per month was an excessive amount for the wife’s (“W”) interim maintenance or a reasonable reflection of the marital standard of living. The Husband (“H”) challenged the sum, arguing that it was “rapacious” and “wholly without merit.” He sought to reduce the amount to £24,438, citing a need for financial realism post-separation. W countered that the couple had always enjoyed a high standard of living and that financial resources had never been an issue during the marriage.
In the midst of this, H’s legal team opposed the inclusion of a supplementary financial disclosure bundle, raising further procedural disputes.
Maintenance Pending Suit: The Court’s Approach
The court relied on Section 22 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which grants judges the power to order maintenance during divorce proceedings.
Key considerations included the marital Standard of Living and that whilst MPS should reflect a spouse’s immediate financial needs, it should not necessarily replicate the extravagant lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage. The court also considered fairness and proportionality ensuring that, in this case, W could meet her essential expenses, while also considering H’s financial position.
The Ruling: A Measured Compromise
After reviewing the evidence, the judge slightly increased the interim maintenance figure to £29,750 per month—an amount that closely aligned with what H had previously agreed to pay. However, the court declined to backdate the maintenance order to 23rd October 2024, despite W’s request, or penalise H for his litigation conduct, deciding that no departure from the standard approach to costs was warranted.
This ruling reinforces several principles in high-net-worth divorce cases:
- Maintenance orders should meet immediate needs but should not automatically preserve the couple’s pre-divorce lifestyle.
- The court must take a case-specific approach, rather than applying broad, sweeping conclusions.
- Costs remain subject to the standard basis unless a party’s conduct justifies a deviation.
This case highlights the fine line courts must walk in ultra-high net worth divorces. Whilst W secured a significant maintenance award, the court also tempered expectations by refusing to backdate payments or impose punitive costs on H.
Financial Arrangements
Our specialist team of family law solicitors can help you navigate Financial Arrangements during and as part of a divorce or civil partnership dissolution. Our team is experienced in High-Net-Worth divorce cases and can guide you through the process.
About the Author
Alice Brett is a Senior Associate Solicitor in our Family law team at Amphlett Lissimore. Based across our Battersea and Victoria offices, Alice Brett specialises in private family disputes, including high net worth financial remedy cases.
