Legal Services Payment Orders: pay up or else

Posted
AuthorKatherine Tippetts

Where one of the parties of divorce will struggle to afford legal representation, they may be able to secure a Legal Services Payment Order (LSPO) against the wealthier party.

The financial remedies team at mfg Solicitors are experienced in securing LSPOs to protect the financial weaker party on divorce.

The Court of Appeal has recently handed down a fairly radical decision which demonstrates that an LSPO can be a powerful tool against a non-compliant wealthy party in financial proceedings.

What is an LSPO?

An LSPO is an order, made under s22ZA of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, requiring the wealthier party to pay a specified amount to the other party - enabling them to instruct lawyers to represent them. The underlying principle is fairness; and prevents one party from unjustly exploiting their financial advantage in legal proceedings.

An applicant for an LPSO in divorce and financial remedies proceedings will need to satisfy a financial needs assessment. The judge must then be satisfied that without the LSPO, the applicant would not reasonably be able to benefit from legal representation in court.

Pay up or else

In Ahmad & Anor v Faraj [2025] EWCA Civ 468, the parties were involved in what the judge in earlier proceedings described as a “blizzard” of destructive litigation. In November 2023, Sohail Sultan Ahmed was ordered to pay £6,080,000 to his former wife (Meerna Faraj) by 1 March 2024. He was also ordered to pay spousal and child maintenance.

He was granted permission to appeal the lump sum order on the basis that the judge was wrong to decide he had the funds available to pay the lump sum.

In December 2024, Ms Faraj secured an LSPO in the sum of £120,000 +VAT to enable her to respond to his appeal with legal representation. She had no funds of her own to pay her legal costs and the judge found that without the LSPO, she would suffer a “grave injustice”.

Mr Ahmed failed in an appeal against the LSPO but paid nothing to Ms Faraj.

She then sought an order preventing Mr Ahmed from pursuing his appeal against the lump sum order unless or until he paid the amount due under the LSPO. The court considered the merits of two potential orders:

An ‘Unless order’ – to the effect that unless the LSPO was paid, Mr Ahmad could not proceed with his appeal against the substantive financial order. Non-payment would lead to automatic debarring of his appeal hearing
A Hadkinson order – this is slightly less draconian than an Unless order. Mr Ahmad would not be permitted to have his appeal heard until the LSPO was satisfied.

The Court of Appeal did not accept Mr Ahmad’s claim not to have available funds to pay the LSPO. On the contrary, it had no doubt that his breach was deliberate and wilful. The court decided he could not have his appeal heard unless and until he had complied with the LSPO, and made a Hadkinson order to that effect. This was sufficiently proportionate to enforce the LSPO against him.

However, Mr Ahmad continued to try to delay matters after the draft judgment had been sent to both parties. He wanted yet another six month to pay the LSPO but this was refused. He was given around 8 weeks in which to pay in full.