Family practitioners must always have one eye on the court’s overriding objective, says Ed Heaton
In AM v SS [2013] EWHC 4380 (Fam), the wife was 28 and the husband was 45. They had married in 2007 and had one child who was nearly five at the time of the hearing. The marriage had been short lived and had ended in 2009. There followed ongoing litigation resulting in total costs of around £450,000. According to the husband, this total far exceeded the parties’ resources. The wife argued, however, that they represented a just small percentage of them.
On 11 April 2011, the husband was ordered to pay maintenance pending suit to the wife of £8,000 per month. This was subsequently varied downwards on 5 August 2011 to £5,500 per month (with a payment for arrears fixed at £10,200). In December 2012, the wife made an application for an order for maintenance pending suit in respect of her costs. At the time of her application, she owed £39,000, and it was estimated
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
