Holly represented a wife in her application for interim periodical payments under s.27 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (failure to maintain). The wife argued that after their short marriage the husband had failed to provide her with sufficient financial support.
The husband claimed that he had insufficient funds with which to assist her and that he could not draw funds from his two companies.
Holly cross-examined the husband at length about his available funds, and as a result was able to persuade the judge that he had access to more funds than had been disclosed. The judge awarded Holly’s client several thousand pounds a year more in periodical payments than the husband was offering.