At Wolferstans, we always encourage clients to explore alternatives to Court proceedings when trying to resolve finances during a divorce, as we believe that it is best for all parties when a settlement can be achieved as amicably as possible. Court proceedings often increase tension between parties, as the process can be stressful, lengthy and expensive. Despite the best efforts of the parties some cases do result in litigation. A recent case, in which we represented the husband, highlights exactly why it is best for parties to deal with matters in a proportionate and measured way rather than resorting to a Court application.
The case, heard earlier this year in the Family Court in Plymouth, was a stark example of what can go wrong when litigation is pursued even over relatively modest sums. The Judge was so concerned by the wife’s litigation that he published his judgement to give a clear message to others.
An interim application costing £13,000 in legal fees
The dispute concerned a divorcing couple and an interim application by the wife within the main financial remedy proceedings, for £500 per month in interim maintenance, known in family law as ‘maintenance pending suit’, to provide a monthly income to cover the period between the application in March and the final hearing scheduled for July.
In total, the wife sought a maximum of £1,500, or at best £2,000 with backdating (three to four months’ of payments). Yet the parties’ legal costs of this interim application ballooned to over £13,000. The wife spent £8,716 on legal fees – nearly ten times the value of the money at stake. The husband’s legal fees in responding to the application were £4,170.
The judgment was scathing of the wife and her legal representatives, with the judge describing the situation as a “bad application to make at this late stage in the case,” criticising it as “thoroughly cost disproportionate” and saying that “it has done only ill for the reputation of the Family Courts and family lawyers.”
Our defence for the husband avoided criticism from the Judge, who also emphasised that the approach that the wife had taken had diverted focus and resources from preparing for the final hearing, increased ill-feeling between the parties and undermined opportunities to reach a sensible settlement.
The judge pointed out that alternative solutions to the wife making the application for interim maintenance were available.
The judge questioned why the wife had not proposed a pragmatic solution, noting that a simple agreement, such as each party receiving £2,000 from money being held by solicitors to help them manage until the final hearing, could have saved both sides significant costs and stress. Instead of offering a reasonable solution the wife jumped into the application without any notice to the husband or attempt to find a solution away from court.
The risks of litigation
This case is a cautionary tale about the dangers of pursuing unrealistic and disproportionate applications especially when the financial stakes are relatively low. Litigation can be expensive, emotionally draining and unpredictable. In family law cases, particularly those involving children, it can create unnecessary conflict and damage relationships further.
The judgment highlighted how costs in family proceedings can increase quickly, sometimes far exceeding the value of the issues in dispute. The Judge commented that the application for
maintenance pending suit was ill judged and resulted in the wife being ordered to pay the husband’s legal costs in the sum of £3,500. Instead of receiving an additional £2,000, the wife is now £12,216 worse off as she will have to pay the costs to the husband as ordered in addition to meeting her own costs in respect of the application.
The benefits of Non-Court Dispute Resolution
At Wolferstans, we understand the emotional and financial strain that family disputes can cause. That’s why we advocate alternative ways to achieving a settlement to Court proceedings wherever possible.
Options like collaborative law and solicitor-led negotiation can be beneficial for divorcing couples helping them to:
- Reach agreements more quickly – When parties can agree matters voluntarily stringent Court timetables can be avoided as well as the need to wait for hearing dates and face adjournments.
- Control costs, by focusing on practical solutions rather than legal point-scoring The costs on matters that settle through voluntary disclosure and negotiation are often far less than those where there are Court proceedings.
- Reduce conflict, by encouraging constructive dialogue and understanding.
- Maintain privacy, keeping family matters out of the public domain.
- Put children first, by preserving co-parenting relationships and minimising stress for the family.
Of course, there are times when court proceedings are necessary, particularly if one party refuses to engage reasonably but, as this case illustrates, not every dispute should be brought before the Court and careful consideration needs to be given to when applications are appropriate.
Our commitment to clients
In this case, we took pride in our work representing the husband and defending his position in a fair and proportionate manner but the application should not have been made by the wife. We will always provide our clients with honest, practical advice about the merits of their case and whether court action is truly in their best interests.
In all cases we will provide our clients with realistic advice as to their prospects of success. We strive to achieve the best outcomes for our clients in the most efficient, cost effective and stress free way possible.
If you are going through a separation or financial dispute, we urge you to consider all your options before embarking on costly litigation. Our experienced family law team can help you explore alternatives and work towards a solution that meets your needs, minimises your expenses and protects your future.