5. How does the court assess interim maintenance?

5. How does the court assess interim maintenance?

Interim maintenance is a temporary measure, often determined before the parties’ full financial evidence has been tested. The court therefore adopts a “broad-brush” approach. It is not appropriate, nor is it usually possible, for a judge to conduct a detailed forensic investigation into the parties’ finances at this stage. 

The court will instead take a broad view of the available evidence and reach a practical interim conclusion without hearing the oral testimony of the parties. Detailed factual disputes about particular items of expenditure, or about the parties’ full financial circumstances, are generally left for determination at the substantive ancillary relief hearing. 

An applicant should nevertheless provide a clear and specific interim budget. The budget should focus on recurring living expenses, reasonable one-off payment or reimbursement (such as agency fee for tenancy agreement or hiring a domestic helper) and should avoid claims for long-term capital expenditure. Typical budget items may include education costs, food, clothing, utilities, medical expenses, transport, and other ordinary personal expenses of the child. 

Although the interim exercise is less detailed than the final hearing, both parties remain under a duty to give full and frank disclosure.  

Where a party’s financial disclosure is obviously deficient, the court is not bound to accept the party’s mere “say-so” that they cannot afford to pay. In such cases, the court may make robust assumptions about that party’s financial capacity and may err in favour of the other party in accessing the parties’ financial resources when fixing interim maintenance.