In DSD v MJW [2025] EWFC 119 (B), Deputy District Judge David Hodson delivers a candid—and cutting—judgment on a £500-a-month maintenance pending suit (MPS) application that cost nearly £13,000 in legal fees to argue. The case is a cautionary tale for lawyers and litigants alike: just because an interim application can be made doesn’t mean it should be.
What is Maintenance Pending Suit?
MPS is a form of interim financial support paid by one spouse to another after separation but before the final financial remedy order. It’s designed to meet genuine short-term needs and preserve fairness while financial issues are resolved. The test is reasonableness, but this case shows that reasonableness isn’t just about the recipient’s budget—it includes timing, proportionality, and commercial sense.
The Application: A £500-a-Month Dispute That Cost £13,000
In this case, the wife sought £500 per month in MPS for three months—at most £2,000 including any backdating. By the hearing date, she had incurred £8,716 in costs, and the husband had spent £4,170 responding. That’s almost £13,000 in legal fees for a claim worth, on paper, a tenth of that. The judge’s conclusion? “How can that ever be?”
Judge Hodson made clear that while MPS applications can be justified in situations of genuine need—such as pending homelessness or the sudden loss of income—this was not such a case. The wife had:
- A stable income of around £38,000 from the armed services.
- Subsidised housing.
- Shared child arrangements (and expenses) with the husband.
- Support from her parents, who were funding her litigation.
What tipped the scale, however, was the lack of urgency and the lateness of the application. The FDR had taken place four months earlier, and the final hearing was just three months away. If support had truly been needed, it should have been raised at the FDR or immediately afterwards—not two months later.
Judicial Frustration: “This Was a Bad Application”
Judge Hodson did not mince words:
“This was a bad application to make at this late stage in the case. It should not have been made.”
He went on to note that the application had not only failed the legal test, but it had:
- Diverted time and resources from trial preparation.
- Increased animosity between the parties.
- Brought the family courts—and family lawyers—into disrepute due to the absurd costs.
Could It Have Been Avoided? Yes.
The judge suggested a practical workaround: with over £700,000 held on account, why didn’t either party propose that £2,000 be paid out to each side to tide them over until trial? That would have been quicker, cheaper, and would have avoided the hearing entirely. Instead, litigation strategy took precedence over common sense.
Key Lessons for Family Lawyers and Clients
- Think twice before pursuing small MPS claims late in proceedings. If the final hearing is imminent, courts are unlikely to intervene unless there’s a pressing change in circumstances.
- Proportionality matters. Costs must bear some relation to what is at stake. Spending £9,000 to pursue £2,000 isn’t litigation—it’s financial self-sabotage.
- Use interim funds creatively. Withheld capital can sometimes be released by consent to avoid unnecessary interim disputes.
- Don’t expect courts to rubber-stamp late-stage tactics. If the application appears to be part of a broader litigation strategy (e.g., to inflate future capitalised maintenance), expect scrutiny.
Final Thought
DSD v MJW is a sharp reminder that MPS applications must be rooted in genuine need, made in good time, and pursued with commercial realism. Interim applications are not free hits—they come with cost consequences, strategic risks, and, sometimes, judicial rebuke.
