MG v GM [2022] EWFC 8

Vardags secure victory in ‘battle royale’ case, obtaining substantial maintenance pending suit and legal service provision for client

Background

MG v GM [2022] EWFC 8 concerned an application for maintenance pending suit and a legal services order by the wife, represented by Vardags, where jurisdiction was disputed.

The couple both held multiple citizenships, meeting in 2016 and then marrying in London in 2017. They continued to live in London until February 2021, when they moved overseas with their children. The relationship then came to an end in summer 2021. It was the husband’s case that the family’s move was a permanent relocation, whilst the wife claimed that it was a temporary move.

In June 2021, the husband sought interim measures in respect of the couple’s children, and potentially in respect of divorce. The wife later came to the UK with the children, without the husband’s knowledge or consent, and he sought their return under the 1980 Hague Convention. This application was dismissed, with the court finding that the children were habitually resident in the UK.

The Outcome

Following the wife’s return to the UK with the children, the husband had not provided any financial support to her or the children. He claimed that he was unable to pay anything for them, due to a lack of liquidity, but failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure to support this.

Given that the husband had previously provided the wife with a luxurious lifestyle which did not indicate struggles with liquidity or cashflow, continued to make significant investments into his businesses and then quickly cut off financial support as the marriage was ending, the judge did not accept that the husband was unable to pay maintenance on account of illiquidity.

Importantly, the judge found that the dispute over jurisdiction did not prevent the court from making interim orders.

As such, the judge ordered the husband to pay the wife £250,000 per annum for general maintenance and £144,000 per annum for the wife’s rent, both to be backdated to her application, as well as the children’s school and nursery fees as and when they were to become payable.

Furthermore, the judge also ordered the husband to pay the wife’s legal costs, aside from those related to the Hague Convention proceedings.