Legal Services Payment Orders (LSPOs) are often spoken about as a remedy of last resort. In practice, they can be the difference between a party being able to litigate at all — or being forced into an unfair settlement through lack of funds.
The decision in DR v ES and Ors (Further LSPO Application) [2026] EWFC 15 is a striking example of the court taking a robust, pragmatic approach to litigation funding, and it offers valuable guidance on how LSPO applications should be framed — and when they will succeed.
The Case in Brief
This was not a first LSPO, but a further application, made in long-running and hard-fought financial remedy proceedings. The wife sought additional funding to take her through:
- the PTR, and
- the final hearing.
The court ordered:
- £73,000 to take the wife through to the PTR; and
- a further £332,000 from the PTR to the final hearing.
These are substantial figures — and deliberately so.
The court accepted that without this funding, the wife would be unable to litigate effectively, while the husband remained well-resourced.
Why This Case Matters
What makes DR v ES particularly noteworthy is not just the size of the award, but the court’s clear-eyed focus on fairness of process, rather than abstract notions of restraint.
Three themes stand out.
- LSPOs are About Equality of Arms — Not Austerity
The court was unpersuaded by arguments that the wife should simply “do with less” or strip her case back to the bare minimum.
An LSPO is not about funding a shoestring case; it is about enabling a party to properly present their case, especially where:
- the issues are complex,
- disclosure is extensive, or
- the other party is legally well-armed.
The court recognised that proper preparation costs money, and that denying reasonable funding risks procedural injustice.
- Further LSPOs Are Not Exceptional
There is sometimes an assumption that once an LSPO has been made, that is “it”.
This case confirms the opposite. Where circumstances justify it — including the scale of proceedings and what has unfolded since the last order — further LSPOs can and will be made.
The key question is not how many LSPOs there have been, but whether ongoing funding is reasonably required.
- The Court Will Look Closely at Realistic Costs
Importantly, the court did not accept vague or inflated figures. The successful application was supported by:
- detailed cost schedules,
- a clear breakdown by phase, and
- justification for the level of work proposed.
This was not a blank cheque — but it was a realistic one.
5 Top Tips: How to Secure an LSPO
Drawing on DR v ES and the wider LSPO jurisprudence, some clear practical lessons emerge.
- Evidence Is Everything
A successful LSPO application needs:
- clear evidence of lack of available funding, and
- proof that commercial borrowing is not realistically available.
Bare assertions will not do.
- Be Forensic About Costs
Courts expect:
- phase-by-phase costings,
- proportionality, and
- transparency.
A carefully prepared schedule is far more persuasive than broad estimates.
- Show the Consequences of No Order
Judges are particularly alert to the practical impact of refusing an LSPO.
Spell it out: What can’t be done without funding? What prejudice would arise? How would this affect the fairness of the process?
- Don’t Be Afraid of a Further Application
If earlier funding has been exhausted due to the scale or conduct of proceedings, a further LSPO is not an indulgence — it may be essential.
- Timing Matters
Apply early enough to avoid crisis, but late enough to show the court exactly what lies ahead procedurally and financially.
A Broader Message
DR v ES is a reminder that LSPOs remain a vital tool in ensuring that financial remedy litigation is decided on the merits, not on who can afford the better legal team. Where one party controls the purse strings, the court will not hesitate to intervene — firmly — to ensure fairness.
For litigants and practitioners alike, this case underlines an important truth: access to justice in family law must be practical, not theoretical.
