That’s what happened in DSD v MJW [2025] EWFC 119 (B) – a case that serves as a sharp warning for anyone thinking of applying for maintenance pending suit (MPS) during divorce.
The wife’s application, brought just months before trial, was rejected outright. The judge’s verdict? The claim was late, unnecessary, and financially irrational.
What is MPS – and when should you use it?
MPS is a type of interim financial support available to one spouse during divorce proceedings, before a final settlement is reached. It’s there to help meet essential needs – food, housing, bills – when the applicant doesn’t have access to sufficient funds.
But it’s not designed for tactical use, and it’s not a guaranteed fallback. The court must be satisfied that:
- There’s a clear and immediate need, and
- The request is reasonable – in timing, amount, and cost.
What happened in this case?
The wife applied for £500 per month for a few months – at most, £2,000. But by the time of the hearing, she had spent £8,716 in legal costs on the application alone. The husband had spent over £4,700 defending it.
The court was unimpressed. The final hearing was already scheduled for July 2025, and the parties had around £700,000 in proceeds from a property sale held in solicitors’ accounts. The wife hadn’t proposed drawing from that money until just days before the hearing.
She also argued she might lose her accommodation – but offered no real evidence. The judge pointed out that, if a genuine housing emergency had arisen, the court could have listed a hearing at short notice.
Why was the application refused?
-
Too late
The claim came months after the failed FDR (settlement hearing). By then, the court felt it was more appropriate to wait for the full trial, where the parties’ finances would be properly assessed.
-
Not urgent
The wife had regular income from the armed forces and subsidised housing. There was no pressing need for immediate intervention.
-
Cost outweighed benefit
Spending £9,000 in legal fees to pursue a claim worth £2,000 didn’t stack up. The judge described it as making “no commercial sense whatsoever.”
-
Lack of engagement with alternatives
The judge questioned why the wife didn’t suggest releasing a modest sum from joint funds earlier – a solution that might have resolved the issue without going to court.
Was it strategic?
The court suspected the application may have been tactical – aimed at influencing later claims or increasing pressure on the husband. But that strategy backfired.
Judges are alert to this kind of approach. Interim claims that appear opportunistic or inflated often damage the applicant’s credibility and risk adverse costs orders.
What are the key lessons for divorcing spouses?
Make early, proportionate applications.
Courts are more likely to grant MPS when it’s made promptly, with clear evidence of need, and without excessive cost.
Explore alternatives before litigating.
Where joint funds exist, consider whether a practical solution can be agreed instead of going to court.
Don’t assume MPS is guaranteed.
Even if your financial position is tight, the court will weigh whether a temporary order is necessary and justified.
Avoid tactical moves.
Applications brought for pressure or positioning often result in wasted costs and strained proceedings.
Final thoughts
The Family Court’s message is clear: maintenance pending suit can offer real support where it’s genuinely needed – but used poorly, it can waste time, money, and goodwill. Before making any application, it pays to ask not just can I?, but should I?
Have questions? Get in touch today!
Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.
Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.
Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/
For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.
