Mother wins High Court appeal after maintenance cut ruled unfair 

A mother whose maintenance payments from her ex-husband were significantly reduced has won a High Court appeal in a case underlining the importance of properly scrutinising decisions in the family courts to ensure outcomes are fair.

In P v M (2026), handed down earlier this month, the High Court set aside a decision that had reduced the wife’s financial support, ruling that the original hearing had been procedurally unfair.

The husband had argued that his income hc d fallen and secured a reduction in spousal maintenance. However, the wife (now divorced) instructed specialist divorce and financial separation lawyers, Ros Bever, Taler Kelly, and Grace Morahan at Irwin Mitchell to challenge the outcome, arguing that key financial evidence had not been properly disclosed by the husband.

The case also highlights the international complexity often seen in modern family law disputes. The parties lived together in multiple countries during their relationship; both working in the entertainment industry. This means their income is earned across jurisdictions and through differing tax structures. This cross-border element added a further layer of complexity to assessing the husband’s true financial position.

Allowing the appeal, Mr Justice Harrison found that repeated judicial interventions during the hearing disrupted the wife’s ability to challenge the husband’s evidence, including on his income and tax position.  

The court also criticised the approach taken to assessing the husband’s financial disclosure, noting that the judge relied on assumptions about tax and did not carry out a proper analysis of his earnings, despite their complexity. As a result, the High Court concluded that the central issue in the case – the husband’s true earning capacity – had not been properly tested and that the decision could not safely stand.  

Significantly, the judgment provides important clarification on the use of ‘global orders’ in maintenance cases. The High Court rejected the prevailing assumption that there is no jurisdiction to make such orders, that combines spousal and child support into a single, flexible award, where the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) has been engaged.  

Mr Justice Harrison commented that “it [is] regrettable (to say the least) that family justice should be required to operate under a two-tier system in which there is literally one rule for the rich and another for everybody else”, and accepted that global orders can play a crucial role in addressing that unfairness. By allowing for a single, self-adjusting figure, global orders can provide greater certainty and stability for receiving parents and children, particularly where CMS assessments fluctuate or do not fully reflect a family’s financial reality.

The case will now be re-heard to establish a fair maintenance arrangement.

Ros Bever, leading family partner and Head of the Private Client Group at Irwin Mitchell, who represented the wife, said:

“This case highlights how important it is for decisions in the family courts to be properly scrutinised to ensure they are fair.

 

“When maintenance is being reviewed, both sides must have a full and proper opportunity to test the evidence, particularly where finances are complex. 

“For separating couples, it underlines how significant these decisions can be in day-to-day life, especially for the parent relying on that support. Getting both the process and the financial picture right is critical.

 

“It also reinforces that where a decision appears to have been reached without proper scrutiny, it may be open to challenge.

 

“The judgment also provides important clarity that courts can take a more flexible approach to maintenance where appropriate, particularly in cases where Child Maintenance Service assessments do not reflect the reality of a family’s needs.”

The case will now return to the Central Family Court for a fresh hearing, with full financial disclosure required from both parties.