A High Court judge has ordered a husband to pay £750,000 towards his wife’s legal costs but cautioned against any excessive or disproportionate spending.
Deputy High Court Judge Nicholas Allen KC, presiding in SM v BS (Legal Services Payment Order), ruled that while the wife required funding to secure legal representation, she could still be ordered to repay some of the amount granted.
The wife had initially sought £1.1 million to cover outstanding and projected legal costs, including £241,000 in unpaid invoices, £651,000 for financial remedy proceedings, and £47,000 related to an upcoming maintenance hearing, where she is seeking to increase monthly payments from £29,500 to £34,900. That hearing is scheduled for next month.
The husband’s legal team described the sums requested as ‘staggering’ and noted that he had already committed £250,000 to his own solicitors. The judge acknowledged concerns over the high legal fees.
The husband disputed the claim that his wife’s legal team would stop representing her without immediate payment, pointing out that her solicitors had only recently suggested they might withdraw. He also noted that they had previously stated they would continue acting for her as long as unpaid fees did not exceed £300,000, meaning the historic debts did not require urgent settlement.
In his ruling, the judge ordered the husband to pay £178,000 towards past legal costs, £500,000 for future financial remedy proceedings, and £75,000 for matters relating to the family home.
The judge warned against allowing one side’s solicitor and client to become ‘beholden’ to each other due to significant unpaid fees.
He emphasised that the sum awarded was intended solely for funding legal representation and did not determine final cost liabilities. The judge also referenced the husband’s lawyer’s argument that the wife appeared to believe she could ‘spend what she likes on this litigation’ without considering proportionality, assuming a ‘blank cheque’ would cover her expenses. The judge said:
“I do not know whether this is W’s belief. If it is, it should not be.
Both parties need to be aware that I shall have no hesitation in making an inter partes costs order at the conclusion of these proceedings if pursuant to FPR 2010 r28.3 I consider it appropriate to do so because of their conduct in relation to the proceedings (whether before or during them).”
