One of the most common questions family lawyers are asked is: "How much is this divorce going to cost?"
A recent High Court decision, AB v CD [2026] EWHC 1504 (Fam), shows just how quickly legal costs can escalate in high-conflict financial remedy proceedings—and why courts are increasingly concerned about proportionality.
The case involved applications for Maintenance Pending Suit (interim maintenance) and a Legal Services Payment Order (LSPO), which is an order requiring one spouse to fund the other's legal representation.
The wife argued that she could not reasonably fund the litigation herself and sought substantial financial assistance from the husband.
The court agreed that funding was necessary. However, what makes this case particularly interesting is not the fact that an LSPO was granted. Rather, it is the judge's concern about the extraordinary level of costs already being incurred at a very early stage of the proceedings.
Costs Rising Before the Case Has Properly Begun
By the time of the first hearing, the wife's costs across the financial remedy and children proceedings had already reached approximately £175,000. Even more strikingly, the total funding sought to take the case only to the First Appointment was said to be approximately £367,000.
The judge described these figures as "extraordinary".
For many separating couples, such sums are almost unimaginable. Yet the case serves as a reminder of how quickly costs can accumulate when proceedings become contested, particularly where there are disputes about income, disclosure, children, or the availability of resources.
What Is a Legal Services Payment Order?
An LSPO exists to ensure that one party is not unfairly disadvantaged in litigation because they lack access to funds. The purpose is not to punish the wealthier spouse. Nor is it intended to provide an unlimited litigation budget. Instead, the court seeks to create a level playing field so that both parties can participate effectively and obtain appropriate legal advice.
In this case, the wife sought significantly more funding than the court ultimately awarded. While the judge accepted that she required assistance, he was also concerned to ensure that any order remained reasonable and affordable.
The final award was £160,000—substantial by any measure, but less than half the amount sought.
A Reminder That Costs Matter
One of the most important messages from the judgment is that the court expects legal costs to remain proportionate. Family proceedings are often emotionally charged. It can be tempting for parties to pursue every issue, challenge every point, and leave no stone unturned. But litigation comes at a price. Every pound spent on legal fees is a pound that may ultimately no longer be available to either party or their children. Judges are increasingly alive to that reality.
Read the Small Print
The case also highlights a practical point that many clients overlook. Where legal fees are deferred or paid on credit, it is important to understand the terms on which that funding is provided. Some retainers may allow interest to accrue on unpaid bills, potentially increasing the overall cost significantly if litigation becomes protracted.
Before entering into any funding arrangement, clients should ensure they understand:
- how fees will be charged;
- when bills become payable;
- whether interest applies to outstanding balances; and
- what happens if the case takes longer than expected.
Good legal advice includes understanding not only your rights and obligations in the litigation, but also the financial implications of pursuing it.
The Importance of Early Resolution
Perhaps the most striking aspect of the judgment is the judge's observation that more realistic positions from both sides at an early stage might have avoided some of the costs being incurred. That is a lesson which applies far beyond this particular case.
While some disputes inevitably require court intervention, many can be narrowed—or even resolved—through sensible negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or other forms of non-court dispute resolution. The earlier that happens, the greater the prospect of preserving resources for the future rather than spending them on litigation.
Final Thoughts
AB v CD is a reminder that family litigation is not simply about who wins and who loses. It is also about how the process is managed and what it costs. Legal Services Payment Orders remain an important tool for ensuring fairness where there is an imbalance of resources. But this case demonstrates that the court will carefully scrutinise the level of funding sought and will expect parties and their advisers to keep costs under control.
For anyone embarking on financial remedy proceedings, the message is simple: Seek advice early, keep a close eye on costs, and remember that the most successful outcome is often the one that preserves as much of the family's resources as possible.
