In DSD v MJW [2025] EWFC 119 (B), the Family Court at Plymouth dismissed an application for maintenance pending suit (MPS) on grounds of proportionality. The judgment underscores a growing impatience with applications pursued without regard to cost-benefit analysis.

Background


The wife sought £500/month in MPS, totalling £1,500–£2,000 over three months until the final hearing in July 2025. Yet, the combined costs of the application (£8,716 for the wife and £4,170 for the husband) amounted to nearly ten times the potential award. Deputy District Judge Hodgson (delivering a reserved judgment) condemned this as a "thoroughly cost disproportionate" exercise, emblematic of systemic issues in financial remedy litigation.

Findings on Proportionality

Timing and Necessity The application was filed in March 2025, just four months before the final hearing. The judge noted that interim relief should be reserved for urgent needs (e.g., imminent homelessness or income collapse), both absent here. The wife’s concerns such as potential loss of service accommodation were speculative, and any genuine crisis could have been addressed via an urgent application later.
Late-Stage Disclosure Disputes While the wife alleged non-disclosure and financial misconduct by the husband (including a £160,000 loss from a company in receivership), the judge held such issues were best resolved at the final hearing. A "broadbrush" approach to interim relief, permissible early in proceedings, was inappropriate where a full merits review was weeks away.
Alternative Solutions The judge highlighted the parties’ failure to explore pragmatic alternatives, such as releasing £2,000 each from £700,000 in held sale proceeds. This would have avoided litigation entirely. The refusal to engage in such solutions exacerbated costs and reinforced the "ill feeling" between parties.
Tactical Missteps The application’s timing, coming two months post-FDR, where a higher MPS request (£800/month) was rejected suggested poor strategy. The judge dismissed any inference that interim payments could influence capitalised maintenance.


The judgment reflects the judicial frustration with the disproportionate costs, particularly in family litigation; an area widely regarded as overly adversarial.

In DSD v MJW [2025] EWFC 119 (B), the Family Court at Plymouth dismissed an application for maintenance pending suit (MPS) on grounds of proportionality. The judgment underscores a growing impatience with applications pursued without regard to cost-benefit analysis.

Background


The wife sought £500/month in MPS, totalling £1,500–£2,000 over three months until the final hearing in July 2025. Yet, the combined costs of the application (£8,716 for the wife and £4,170 for the husband) amounted to nearly ten times the potential award. Deputy District Judge Hodgson (delivering a reserved judgment) condemned this as a "thoroughly cost disproportionate" exercise, emblematic of systemic issues in financial remedy litigation.

Findings on Proportionality

Timing and Necessity The application was filed in March 2025, just four months before the final hearing. The judge noted that interim relief should be reserved for urgent needs (e.g., imminent homelessness or income collapse), both absent here. The wife’s concerns such as potential loss of service accommodation were speculative, and any genuine crisis could have been addressed via an urgent application later.
Late-Stage Disclosure Disputes While the wife alleged non-disclosure and financial misconduct by the husband (including a £160,000 loss from a company in receivership), the judge held such issues were best resolved at the final hearing. A "broadbrush" approach to interim relief, permissible early in proceedings, was inappropriate where a full merits review was weeks away.
Alternative Solutions The judge highlighted the parties’ failure to explore pragmatic alternatives, such as releasing £2,000 each from £700,000 in held sale proceeds. This would have avoided litigation entirely. The refusal to engage in such solutions exacerbated costs and reinforced the "ill feeling" between parties.
Tactical Missteps The application’s timing, coming two months post-FDR, where a higher MPS request (£800/month) was rejected suggested poor strategy. The judge dismissed any inference that interim payments could influence capitalised maintenance.


The judgment reflects the judicial frustration with the disproportionate costs, particularly in family litigation; an area widely regarded as overly adversarial.