Court Orders £750,000 Payment to Fund Wife’s Divorce Costs
Divorce litigation in the UK has once again brought legal costs under the spotlight after the High Court ordered a husband to pay his wife £750,000 towards her ongoing proceedings. The ruling, made by Nicholas Allen KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in SM v BS (Legal Services Payment Order), highlights both the escalating expense of high-value divorce cases and the court’s effort to balance access to justice with proportionality.
Background to the Case
The wife in the case had applied for a Legal Services Payment Order (LSPO)—a mechanism that allows one spouse to request that the other fund their legal costs where necessary to ensure equality of arms in litigation.
She sought a substantial sum of £1.1 million to cover both outstanding invoices and anticipated costs for upcoming hearings. Her request broke down as follows:
- £241,000 to cover unpaid legal bills.
- £651,000 for future financial remedy proceedings.
- £47,000 for an upcoming maintenance application, in which she hopes to increase her monthly maintenance from £29,500 to £34,900.
The husband, however, argued that these sums were excessive and unnecessary. His legal team described the request as “staggering,” particularly as he himself was funding his solicitors with a contribution of £250,000.
The Court’s Ruling
After hearing submissions from both parties, the judge awarded the wife £750,000 in total. This included:
- £178,000 for historic unpaid costs.
- £500,000 for anticipated financial remedy proceedings.
- £75,000 in relation to disputes about the family home.
Judge Allen was clear that this sum represented a balance of reasonableness, not an endorsement of all the wife’s claims. He emphasised that while the court has a duty to ensure that both parties can access legal representation, it will not tolerate unchecked or disproportionate spending.
Importantly, the judge warned that some of the sums might later be subject to repayment, depending on the outcome of the litigation and any final costs orders.
Concerns Over Escalating Costs
The decision underscores a growing judicial unease with the spiralling expense of high-value divorce litigation. In his judgment, Allen KC drew parallels with other recent cases in which costs were described as “nihilistic” and “apocalyptic.”
At the present rate of expenditure, he noted, it would not be surprising if similar descriptors became applicable here. The court made clear that it is unwilling to see divorce proceedings evolve into what he called a “blank cheque” exercise.
The husband’s lawyers had pressed this point, arguing that the wife appeared to assume she could litigate without limits because her husband would be forced to underwrite the costs. Judge Allen responded cautiously, stating:
“I do not know whether this is W’s belief. If it is, it should not be.”
This warning serves as a reminder that LSPOs are not intended to remove accountability or proportionality in litigation spending.
Disputed Necessity
One of the core disputes in the case was whether the wife’s legal team truly required upfront payment in order to continue acting.
The husband pointed out that her solicitors had previously stated they would continue to represent her provided outstanding fees did not exceed £300,000. Since that threshold had not yet been crossed, he argued there was no imminent risk of her losing representation.
However, the judge accepted that the wife would be unable to continue litigation effectively without additional funds, particularly given the anticipated costs of complex financial remedy proceedings. He concluded that a payment of £750,000 was the minimum necessary to ensure fair participation.
Balancing Fairness and Proportionality
At the heart of the ruling lies a fundamental tension in family law: how to ensure one party is not disadvantaged by lack of resources, while also preventing litigation from spiralling into disproportionate and ruinous costs.
The purpose of an LSPO is to level the playing field in cases where one party holds the financial power. Without such orders, wealthier spouses could gain an unfair advantage simply by outspending their counterpart.
However, as this case demonstrates, the court must tread carefully. Granting too much can encourage wasteful spending and turn litigation into a war of attrition. Granting too little risks undermining the principle of fairness.
Judge Allen’s ruling attempts to strike this balance: providing enough to allow the wife to continue, but not the full amount requested, and with a clear warning that spending must remain proportionate.
Wider Legal Context
The case fits within a wider pattern of judicial scrutiny of legal costs in divorce proceedings:
- In recent years, courts have repeatedly criticised parties for running up astronomical bills, particularly in high-net-worth divorces.
- Some judges have described costs as approaching the level of “apocalypse,” highlighting the danger that litigation itself can consume vast portions of the marital estate.
- There have been calls for greater cost control measures, including tighter budgets and more robust judicial management of proceedings.
The ruling in SM v BS reflects these concerns while reaffirming that LSPOs remain a vital tool to prevent financial imbalance from distorting the outcome of litigation.
Implications for Future Cases
This decision will likely serve as a cautionary precedent for both parties and practitioners:
- For applicants: LSPOs are not blank cheques. Requests must be reasonable, and applicants should expect judicial scrutiny of both past and projected costs.
- For respondents: Even if costs seem excessive, the court may still order substantial contributions to ensure fairness. Simply pointing to past statements from solicitors may not suffice.
- For lawyers: Firms representing LSPO applicants must balance their duty to their client with the need to keep costs proportionate. Judges are increasingly willing to challenge budgets that appear inflated.
The Question of Repayment
Another key aspect of Judge Allen’s ruling was his reminder that LSPO funding is not automatically non-refundable.
While the wife has been granted £750,000, she may be required to repay some or all of it depending on the eventual resolution of the case. This means applicants cannot assume LSPOs provide risk-free funding. The spectre of repayment adds an incentive to keep spending in check.
A Continuing Trend
This ruling is the latest in a series of high-profile cases that expose the extraordinary costs of divorce at the upper end of the financial scale. For ordinary families, the sums in dispute may seem far removed from their own experience. Yet the principles at stake—fairness, proportionality, and access to justice—apply across the spectrum.
Legal commentators suggest that unless more is done to rein in excessive spending, public confidence in family law may be undermined. The idea that millions of pounds can be consumed in legal fees, rather than divided between the parties, risks fuelling cynicism about the system’s efficiency and fairness.
Conclusion
The High Court’s order in SM v BS sends a clear dual message: access to justice must be protected, but reckless spending will not be indulged.
By granting £750,000—less than the £1.1 million sought—the court has sought to balance the wife’s need for representation with the wider public interest in keeping litigation proportionate.
Whether this approach will succeed in keeping costs under control remains to be seen. But what is clear is that the judiciary is increasingly alert to the dangers of runaway legal fees in divorce proceedings, and willing to intervene to keep them in check.
Related Articles:
Protect Your Future: Why a Pre-nup or Post-nup Could Be One of the Smartest Legal Steps You Take
Pre-Nups vs Post-Nups: What’s the Difference — and Why You Might Need One
No-Fault Divorce in England: Progress, But With Pitfalls
