ST v NT (Maintenance Pending Suit) [2026] EWFC 171

[2026] EWFC 171Case No 1771-5900-5434-1925
IN THE FAMILY COURT
Venue SITTING AT THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 02/07/2026
Before
MR JUSTICE MACDONALD
Between
STApplicantNTRespondent
Mr Nicholas Wilkinson KC (instructed by Laurus Law) for ApplicantMr Christopher Pocock KC and Mr George Gordon (instructed by Weightmans LLP) for RespondentHearing Hearing dates: 26 June 2026
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 2 July 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by later release to the National Archives..............................MR JUSTICE MACDONALD
[1]In this matter I am concerned with financial remedy proceedings between ST (who I shall hereafter refer to as ‘the wife’), represented by Mr Wilkinson of King’s Counsel, and NT (who I shall hereinafter refer to as ‘the husband’), who is represented by Mr Christopher Pocock of King’s Counsel and Mr George Gordon of counsel.[2]The matter comes before the court today for a First Directions Appointment. In addition to considering the directions that fall to be considered at the FDA, the court also has before it an application by the wife for maintenance pending suit (MPS).[3]In determining the wife’s application, I have had the benefit of reading the court bundle prepared and helpful and concise notes from leading and junior counsel, together with certain additional documents submitted by the parties ahead of the hearing.

BACKGROUND

[4]For the purposes of the applications before the court, the background to this matter can be set out in relatively short order.[5]The husband is 59 years of age and is the founder of T Group, which is involved in the technology industry. T Group is a collective term for various entities which are run as one business in the technology sector. The business covers all aspects of IT services including the sale of hardware, providing network and wireless solutions, cloud management and IT support services. The husband is the founding shareholder, a member of every operating LLP and effective group chief executive. On his Form E, the husband deposes that the business had a turnover of £100M in 2023. The parties are agreed that a single joint expert should be instructed to value the family business. The husband contends that since that time the business has suffered a downturn in its fortunes, with turnover dropping to £57M in 2026. The husband asserts that T Group is currently in a precarious position and that it has been necessary to restructure loan facilities in order to secure working capital. The husband’s Form E states as follows:
“Revenue is down and the tech industry operates on tight margins. Since 2023 when global turnover was at £100 million, there has been a steady decline. In 2024 turnover was down by over £40 million to c£58million. In 2025/26 it has dropped further still (the £72 million being a 15 month period and so equivalent to approximately £57 million over a standard 12 month accounting period.”
[6]The wife is 49 years of age and is the primary carer of the children and home maker. She has been diagnosed with Addison’s disease. There is a dispute as to the nature and extent of the wife’s involvement in the family business prior to the parties’ separation. In 2024, the wife started a business. The wife contends that she has not been able to give the business the attention that it requires and it is currently trading at a loss.[7]The parties’ relationship commenced in January 2007, cohabitation followed in January 2008 and the parties were married on 3 May 2008. There are 2 children of the marriage who live with the wife and spend time with the husband. They are 16 years old and 14 years old respectively.[8]After 17 ½ years, the parties separated, on the wife’s account, on 27th July 2025, and on the husband’s account, in January 2025. The wife petitioned for divorce on 10 February 2026. A Conditional Order has not yet been made on that petition. The wife made an application for a financial remedy on 23 February 2026. The case was allocated to a judge of High Court level and the exchange of Forms E directed.[9]The husband remains residing in the former matrimonial home. The parties bought the former matrimonial home for £3.24M. The wife lives with the children in a four bedroom property owned by one of the subsidiaries of the family business. That property was purchased for £860,000.[10]There is also a twelve property portfolio which the wife contends is valued at approximately £10M and thirty-one cars and a collection of motorbikes, which the wife contends were purchased for approximately £4.2M; potentially £15M in total. The properties and the vehicles, which include seventeen high specification Porsches, are owned through the business. The husband portrays the cars as company assets against which business investment can be secured and argues against them being indicative of the parties’ lifestyle. The wife says that Porsches are the husband’s passion and that he spends considerable amounts on their upkeep and racing. The parties agree that a valuer should be instructed to provide a valuation of the vehicles.[11]The husband currently provides the wife with £5,000 pm by way of approved drawings from the business in order to meet her needs and those of the children, with the costs of the wife’s occupation of the company property, the medical insurance of herself and the children, school fees and mobile phones being funded direct by the company rather than being paid to the wife.[12]In the context of the wife’s application for MPS, there are disputes about the marital standard of living, the manner in which the family’s expenditure was met historically, about the husband’s level of income as against his personal budget and about the sufficiency of the husband’s level of disclosure that are relevant to the determination of the wife’s application.[13]In his Form E the husband deposes to an income of £32,000 net per annum. However, he gives his personal budget as £65,980. The wife contends that the husband’s budget is incomplete and that his stated annual income is simply not credible having regard to the matrimonial standard of living and what information before the court shows about his actual expenditure. The wife points to the fact that in the last three years the husband has spent £171,000 to clean and treat the cars between June 2023 and January 2026, that he has just paid £21,000 for the wife and the children to holiday in Spain and that, whilst his budget provides for £250 per month for clothing, during the marriage he spent £100,000 on watches.[14]The wife further contends, and the husband appears to accept, that almost all personal and family expenditure was and is run through the company. The wife asserts that the parties used company accounts and credit cards to fund family expenses throughout the marriage. She states that she had access to company credit cards with a capacity of up to £384,000 in addition to £30,000 per annum drawings from the company. The wife says that the company account was used to cover personal costs including school fees, furnishings, maintaining cars and property and what are described as “luxury” shopping trips.[15]Notwithstanding this position, the husband maintained at the FDA that he should not be required to disclose credit card or bank account statements from the accounts used to fund family expenditure, as they are company statements not required by the Form E. Whilst at the FDA I approved a disputed questionnaire seeking this material, it is not at present before the court. In the circumstances, the wife invites the court to draw adverse inferences in her favour when determining her MPS application.[16]It is common ground between the parties that T Group will, through whichever of its subsidiaries currently services the relevant item, continue to meet the following costs for wife and the children, which are said to equate to approximately £11,000 per month: i) The rent owed to T for the wife’s occupation of the company property. ii) Gardening/maintenance costs at that property. iii) Private medical insurance for the wife and the children. iv) Mobile phone costs. v) Car finance, insurance and fuel costs for the wife’s use of two cars. vi) School fees for each of the children.[17]In addition to these sums, which the wife does not receive directly, the husband has proposed that the wife should continue to receive the net drawings from T Group of £5,000 per month. The husband has also agreed to meet the wife’s reasonable legal fees.[18]By her MPS application the wife seeks £15,960.75 per month, with credit given for the £5,000 per month drawings and on the basis that the business will continue to pay the expenses it does at present. The wife contends that this figure is reasonable by reference to the standard of living during the marriage and the husband’s own current spending. She contends that the figure is affordable by reference to the current performance of T Group. The husband characterised that parties’ standard of living during the marriage as modest and submits that the figure sought by the wife is not reasonable. He submits that, taking account of the tax payable on the income comprising drawings, the amount sought by the wife by way of MPS is not sustainable by T Group having regard to the downturn in business the company has suffered.

RELEVANT LAW

[19]The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 s.22 provides that the court may make an order for maintenance pending suit requiring either party to make periodical payments for maintenance. In TL v ML (Ancillary Relief: Claim Against Assets of Extended Family) [2006] 1 FLR 1263, the court distilled the principles applicable for an application for an order for maintenance pending suit.[20]In TL v ML (Ancillary Relief: Claim Against Assets of Extended Family), having reviewed the authorities, Mostyn J identified the sole criterion to be applied in determining the application as “reasonableness”, which is synonymous with “fairness”. Mostyn J further made clear that a very important factor in determining fairness is the marital standard of living. However, that is not to say that the exercise is merely to replicate that standard of living. The Court of Appeal observed as follows in Rattan v Kuwad [2021] 1 WLR 3141in this regard:
“In the majority of cases, the family’s financial resources are unlikely to be sufficient to enable the marital standard of living to be maintained for both spouses (and the children). However, as a generalisation, the parties’ separation does not, of itself, provide a reason for that standard being reduced in the same way that it does not, of itself, provide a reason for that standard to be increased.”
[21]In determining the question of reasonableness, the focus of the court should be on immediate needs. In Rattan v Kuwad at [33] the Court of Appeal observed as follows in respect of the concept of immediate need:
“[33] It is also clear that, as set out in the Red Book, the purpose of an order for maintenance pending suit is to meet “immediate” needs. The principal issue raised by this appeal is what needs qualify as being immediate and how should the court approach the determination of this question. However, I would stress that the particular circumstances of each case will determine on which issues the court will need to focus and the degree of scrutiny which will be required. In every case the key factors are likely to be the parties’ respective needs and resources and, as was also set out in TL v ML, at para 124(ii), the “marital standard of living” but beyond that, the court’s approach will be tailored to the facts of the particular case.”
[22]In the context of the question for the court being immediate need, in TL v ML (Ancillary Relief: Claim Against Assets of Extended Family) Mostyn J stipulated that in every maintenance pending suit application there should be a specific maintenance pending suit budget, which excludes capital or long term expenditure more aptly to be considered on a final hearing. The budget should also be examined critically in every case to exclude forensic exaggeration.[23]In Collardeau-Fuchs v Fuchs [2022] EWFC 6, Mostyn J recognised that, whilst a claim for maintenance pending suit should be subjected to the same degree of careful scrutiny as any other interlocutory claim, and the court should “try to paint its decision with a fine sable rather than a broad brush” where it has the ability to do so, in most cases it will not have the time or the material to conduct an exhaustive investigation and therefore “the exercise will perforce be rough and ready”. In Baker v Baker [2022] EWFC 15, Mostyn J observed that in light of the decision of Rattan “the analysis does not have to be undertaken with close numerical exactitude; a broad approach to the assessment of immediate needs is not only acceptable but is likely to be commonplace”. This reflected the view of Moylan J (as he then was) in BD v FD [2016] EWHC 4443 that an application for MPS should only be made where “on a broad assessment the court’s intervention is manifestly required”.[24]Finally, in TL v ML (Ancillary Relief: Claim Against Assets of Extended Family) Mostyn J stated that where the evidence of the payer is obviously deficient the court should not hesitate to make robust assumptions about his or her ability to pay and the court is not confined to the account of the payer regarding the extent of income or resources. In such a situation the court should err in favour of the payee. In Thomas v Thomas, Waite LJ held as follows at [83] with respect to the question of inferences:
“[83] …the court is not obliged to limit its orders exclusively to resources of capital or income which are shown actually to exist. The availability of unidentified resources may, for example, be inferred from a spouse's expenditure or style of living, or from his inability or unwillingness to allow the complexity of his affairs to be penetrated with the precision necessary to ascertain his actual wealth or the degree of liquidity of his assets.”

DISCUSSION

[25]I am satisfied that it is in this case necessary for the court to make an order for MPS. I am further satisfied that it is reasonable to make an order that the husband provides to the wife MPS payments of £12,000 per month, with credit given for the £5,000 of drawings being made available to the wife and which will comprise part of the figure of £12,000. In addition, the costs of the rent for wife’s occupation of the company property, the gardening and maintenance costs at that property, the private medical insurance for the wife and the children, the mobile phone costs of the wife and children, the car finance, insurance and fuel costs for the wife and the school fees for each of the children shall continue to be paid for separately by the business, as at present. My reasons for so deciding are as follows.[26]The court is concerned with the immediate needs of the wife and the children. Those immediate needs are for financial stability and predictability pending the final decision of the court in the form of regular funds sufficient to reflect, but not necessarily to replicate, the standard of living during the marriage.[27]As made clear in the authorities, each case will turn on its facts, with the key factors likely to be the parties’ respective needs and resources and the marital standard of living. In this case, the question of whether an MPS order should be made and, if so, what the quantum of that order should be has centred on the standard of living the parties enjoyed during the marriage, the manner in which family expenses were met historically, the husband’s current level of expenditure on himself and the question of affordability in the context of the asserted downturn in business for T Group. The parties’ cases on these points are almost diametrically opposed.[28]Before turning to those matters, having regard to the immediate needs of the wife and children I am satisfied that the manner in which the husband has sought to meet his obligations to the wife and children to date provides strong grounds for making an MPS order.[29]Whilst the husband has continued to meet certain liabilities above and beyond the £5,000 of drawings being made available to the wife, he has done so only on an ad hoc basis. For example, the husband agreed to clear the wife’s credit cards, paying £10,000 towards Barclaycard in February 2026 and £15,000 in April 2026 and agreeing to pay £10,000 towards her current credit card liability. The husband has also paid €17,381 and £2,278 for hotel and business class flights for her and children for an upcoming holiday and reimbursed the wife £6,467 for club membership fees. I agree with the wife’s evidence that it is difficult to understand why the husband is willing to proceed in this manner but not to agree MPS proposals that have been the subject of negotiations ahead of this hearing.[30]This situation supports the making of an MPS order. The primary function of an MPS order is to provide financial stability and certainty pending the court finalising the financial arrangements between the parties. In the circumstances, it is not appropriate for the wife and the children to rely on ad hoc payments made at the election of the husband as their means of financial security pending the final hearing.[31]Such an arrangement also risks becoming a form of control. I accept the evidence of the wife that it is demeaning to her to have to ask each month for funds in the hope that the husband will agree and always at risk that he may not. Further, a particularly unedifying feature in this case is the husband booking the holiday for the wife and the children through the travel company of the person with whom the wife alleges he had an extramarital affair and who is now his partner. This, if true, has forced the wife to be in direct communication with her and her company. The granting of an MPS order will prevent these objectionable situations from arising in the future.[32]With respect to quantum, before turning to the competing contentions in detail, the court’s task on the question of the reasonable quantum of MPS has been made more difficult than it needs to be in this case by the tactical approach the husband has taken to the completion of his Form E, in circumstances where he had almost exclusive control of the matrimonial finances.[33]It does not appear to be seriously disputed that the parties used business accounts and company credit cards to fund family expenses throughout the marriage, and that almost all of the husband’s current expenditure is run through the company. However, and as I have recounted, the husband has not provided, and continued at the FDA to resist providing, statements for the business bank accounts and company credit cards from which that family expenditure was and is funded. The only information given by the husband in his Form E on additional funds taken being his statement that “I take drawings from time to time dependent on profits within the T Group.”[34]Where the living standard during the marriage has been funded through spending from business accounts and / or company credit cards, it is plainly inappropriate to resist proportionate disclosure of details of, and statements from, those accounts and cards on the grounds that the Form E does not ordinarily require the disclosure of company bank accounts. There is a requirement to look to the reality of the position within the marriage and to comply with the spirit, as well as the letter, of the Form E. In this case, it is clear that the family finances were and are inextricably bound up with the business. For example, the former matrimonial home was brought in the name of S LLP, one of the group of companies in T Group. S LLP receives rent from A LLP, another of the companies in T Group, for the husband’s occupation of the former matrimonial home. The property in which the wife and the children currently reside is owned by A LLP.[35]In circumstances where the husband maintained up to and during the FDA that he should not be required to disclose credit card or bank account statements from the accounts used to fund family expenditure during the marriage, as they are company statements not required by the Form E, I am satisfied that I am entitled to draw robust assumptions about the husband’s ability to pay an MPS order made by the court and that I am not confined to the account of the husband regarding the extent of his income or resources. In particular, whilst the husband contends that he cannot fund greater drawings than £5,000 per month, particularly in circumstances where the profits from which those drawings are taken are taxable, I do not accept that assertion.[36]I have considered carefully the evidence of the husband concerning the current position of T Group. In his Form E the husband states that the cashflow for the business has fallen from a positive £1.62M last year to a negative £2.61M this year, a drop of almost £3.7M. The husband contends that T Group revenue is predicted to further contract over the next 12 months, which may further increase member losses and reduce income. No evidence is produced by the husband to corroborate these assertions. I have also borne in mind the husband’s evidence that the profit share must be divided between all the partners of T Group. Finally, I acknowledge that if the husband is ordered to pay MPS then any drawings will be subject to tax at the husband’s marginal rate.[37]However, whilst the husband contends that the downturn in the profitability of the T Group renders it unable to fund any increase in drawings by the wife pending the determination of these proceedings, as I have noted the husband has demonstrated himself able to fund the wife’s credit cards to the tune of £35,000 over the course of 3 months, in addition to payments of €17,381 and £2,278 for hotel and business class flights for the wife and the children, in addition to reimbursing her £6,467 for club membership fees. The husband says in his statement that last year the wife was able to spend significant sums furnishing the property into which she and the children moved. For the purposes of this interim application, this evidence tends to demonstrate that the husband retains capacity to meet obligations at this level notwithstanding his evidence regarding the current performance of the business, particularly in circumstances where he does not suggest the asserted downturn is terminal and considers he can trade out of the current period of difficulty.[38]For broadly the same reasons, I am also satisfied that husband cannot demonstrate that his own level of declared income militates against an MPS order being made in this case. The position with respect to the husband’s income and expenditure on his Form E is opaque to say the least. Whilst the husband deposes to an annual income of £32,000 net, he deposes to an annual expenditure budget of twice that in the sum of £65,980. This at a time he continues to occupy an 85 acre, £3.5M property with thirty-one cars that require maintaining and detailing. The husband concedes that he runs further sums through the business, although as I have noted the precise nature and extent of those sums is not specified beyond the statement “I take drawings from time to time dependent on profits within the T Group.”[39]With respect to the question of affordability therefore, and where I am entitled to draw robust assumptions about the husband’s ability to pay and am not confined to the account of the husband regarding the extent of income or resources, I am satisfied that the husband has been able, and continues to be able to deploy sums for personal and family expenditure greater than his stated annual income suggests. Notwithstanding the husband’s deficient disclosure, this is demonstrated by both the examples set out in the foregoing paragraph and the fact that the business continues to be able to fund other aspects of the wife and children’s needs. As such, I am satisfied that the husband is able to afford to an increased figure by way of MPS.[40]With respect to the parties’ standard of living during the marriage, whilst this does not render the exercise of determining reasonable MPS one of merely replicating the parties’ position when married, it is an important metric against which to assess what is reasonable. I am satisfied that a broad assessment of the parties’ standard of living during the marriage supports an MPS award that significantly exceeds the current drawings the wife is permitted to make.[41]In his Form E, the husband describes the parties’ marital standard of living as a “comfortable but not extravagant standard of living”. On behalf of the husband, Mr Pocock and Mr Gordon sought to persuade the court that the parties did not lead a ‘luxury’ lifestyle during the course of the marriage. Whilst this is, to a certain extent, a subjective question, what is clear is that the parties resided in large properties during the marriage, the last family home being some 3000 square foot in floor area and worth some £3.1M, with a swimming pool and situated in 84 acres of grounds. There are a total of thirty-one cars at the former matrimonial home, including seventeen high specification Porsches. The wife’s evidence is that during the course of the marriage she had access to credit cards with an annual facility of £384,000 per annum, and thus spending power of some £414,000 per annum including her annual drawings. On both parties’ case the family had at least two holidays a year, on which they took business class flights, including a four night skiing trip at a cost of £26,000 and ten nights in Marbella at a cost of £25,000. The family were members of a club with a membership fee of £9,425 per annum.[42]In the foregoing circumstances, I am satisfied that it can be said that the parties had a high standard of living during the course of the marriage. I accept that that high standard of living is the appropriate metric against which to assess a reasonable quantum of MPS, taking into account also the court’s assessment of interim need and its conclusions with respect to affordability.[43]In reaching my decision, I have borne mind that the court’s analysis does not have to be undertaken with close numerical exactitude and that a broad approach to the assessment of immediate needs is acceptable. Once again, the singular question for the court is what is reasonable.[44]In broad terms, I am satisfied that the central elements of the wife’s budget represent her and the children’s reasonable level of need in the interim. However, I do consider that there are elements of forensic exaggeration in the composition of that budget. In particular, I did not consider £3,996 per annum on skincare and beauty products for the children to be reasonable, and have also reduced the figures for clothing, shoes and accessories of £12,000 and £15,996 per annum for the wife and the children respectively. The figure for groceries is conspicuously high for a family of three. Some of that exaggeration has been removed by way of the exchange between the parties of a table of the wife’s contended for income needs. Where necessary, I have removed or reduced further examples in arriving at my decision.[45]Notwithstanding a degree of forensic exaggeration in the wife’s budget, which Mr Pocock and Mr Gordon stressed to the court, I remain satisfied that having regard to the conclusions set out below the wife and children have a significantly greater interim need than is currently provided for by the £5,000 of drawings being made available to the wife and the company meeting the living expenses I have summarised above. The wife has no independent income with which to meet her needs and the needs of the children in the interim. She has exhausted a modest inheritance from her father and her business is currently making a loss, to the extent it is trading at all. Whilst the husband disputes the assertion that he cancelled the company credit cards from which the wife used to benefit, in any event the wife does not have access to those funds either. Her sole source of direct income is the drawing of £5,000 per month in addition to the living costs met by the business.[46]In the circumstances, I am satisfied that an MPS order should be made. Taking into account all of the matters set out above, I am satisfied that the reasonable figure for MPS is £12,000 per month, with credit to be given for the £5,000 drawings and on the basis that the business will continue to fund the rent for wife’s occupation of the current property, the gardening and maintenance costs at that property, the private medical insurance for the wife and the children, the mobile phone costs of the wife and children, the car finance, insurance and fuel costs for the wife and the school fees for each of the children. I am satisfied that this is a reasonable figure having regard to the previous living standard of the parties during the marriage and the living expenses already being covered, and which will continue to be covered, by the business.

CONCLUSION

[47]In the circumstances, I shall make an MPS order in the sum of £12,000 per month on the terms set out in the foregoing paragraph. I will invite counsel to draft an order accordingly. I will deal with the question of costs on the basis of short written submissions if not agreed.