There is no hard and fast calculation as what Fiona says is correct the Court is directed to look at the s 25 MCA factors -"need" is an important driving force.
In the old days SM was calculated by adding the Net incomes together then dividing by 3 and then from the resulting figure deducting the net income of the claiming party and the balance left was the SM.
Case law then stated -such approach is not relevant for "small" or "large" cases so is a helpful guide to see what range the SM should be in.
Can be increased by other s 25 factors one being if other party has a cohabitee earning who contributes to outgoings then the Court looks at the "net effect" of the theoretical 1/3rd approach and adjusts accordingly if more is needed and other party would be left with more net spendable income than the claiming spouse after expenses.
Courts have stated therefore the 1/3rd approach is "a tool not a rule!"
Courts can award SM but this can be anytime after Form A is lodged by application for "Maintenance pending Suit". These are very short hearings and very much aimed at making sure outgoings are covered. So say spouses who try to rule economically by keeping a spouse short beware.
Many have a strategy of keeping a spouse short of money and then claiming they don't need the money or have managed in the interim.
Ways round this is a swift MPS application usually hits such miscreant in the pocket with a costs order which sometimes can make parties see sense and settle the whole ancillary relief case.
Obviously solicitors will try and reach agreement without making an application but caution here the Court has NO power to order backdated maintenance so leaving an application too long can be costly.
Now if it is a matter of managing for 4-6 months till ancillary proceedings are concluded another alternative is to borrow in the interim and then claim that the debt has to be repaid from say
FMH proceeds -obviously one is paying part oneself!
The point I make is that caution should be exercised one doesn't want to spend £750 on solicitors fees for an MPS order which only gives you that sum over 4-6 months extra!!
In a case where a claimant has no borrowing power an MPS application may be necessary.
ALSO whilst the court has no power to order INTERIM lump sums it can order other spouse to allow savings to be used towards legal costs a position which is all too common. Accordingly such application is likely to suceed if both parties are given similar sums to use. Sometimes where say the parties have employment difficulties yet have many properties rented out and the mortgages have gone up and the rent may have reduced if benefit payments reduced those parties may have to look to release funds to live on and use for legal fees until AR proceedings concluded or a property or two are sold.
As the "credit cruch" bites one is seeing more scenarios like that.
By the way one effect of the Credit Crunch is affecting the structure of settlements as say departing Husbands are now having to often put in a minimum 10% and sometimes 25% deposit if they want to purchase alternative properties. Where W cannot raise this then ineviteably there will be pressure to sell FMH's more often now.
Whilst house prices are lowering though there are bargains to be found and rather than focus on sums parties seek they should not take their eye off the ball as a lump sum can buy "more" now!
Hope this helps
