Financial remedy cases; anonymity and ‘apocalyptic’ litigation costs

In the case of Xanthopoulos & Rakshina Mr Justice Mostyn was asked to consider three interim applications in a financial remedy case following divorce.

1. The Husband’s application for a further Legal Services Payment Order (LSPO)
2. The Wife’s application to be released from an undertaking not to use her Coutts bank account
3. The Wife’s application for anonymity

The Judge was horrified by the costs which had accumulated in the case already. The assets in the case were real estate valued at around £11.5 million, a Coutts bank account of £11 million and the Wife’s corporate interests, the value of which was contested but the Husband valued it at at least £30 million. The costs at this point in the proceedings were already almost £5.5 million with a further £1.8 – £2.6 million estimated costs. The Judge described the domestic litigation costs of between £7 – £8 million as “apocalyptic”.

The Judge refused the husband application for a further LSPO as his solicitors were no longer on record. He also suggested that Husband should have budgeted the first LSPO better.

The Judge allowed the Wife to be released from her undertaking not to use her Coutts account. The Wife is Russian and the Judge determined that the war in Ukraine would have impacted upon her finances enough to be considered a significant change in circumstances.

The Judge did not allow the Wife’s application for anonymity but did allow the children’s names and schools to be anonymous. The Judge stated that the default position is that financial remedy Judgments are not anonymised unless there are reporting restrictions following a “Re S” balancing exercise.

If you need help with a case such as this, please contact Mavis on 020 8885 7986 for an appointment with a member of the family team.