Henry Hood and Anna Roiser explore the implications of clean break orders on legal funding In Financial Remedies Journal
Henry’s and Anna’s article was published in the Financial Remedies Journal, 1 October 2025, and can be seen here.
Henry Hood, Senior Partner and Anna Roiser, Senior Knowledge Partner in our Family & Relationships department, examine the recent decision in CC v UU [2025] EWFC 214 and its impact on Legal Services Payment Orders (LSPOs).
Henry and Anna explain that the judgment confirms that once a clean break order is made, parties can no longer apply for LSPOs even if there are ongoing appeals or enforcement actions. Peel J clarified that LSPOs are only available during active financial remedy proceedings, and not for ancillary matters, unless a stay is in place.
The article outlines the procedural background of the case, where the Wife made several unsuccessful applications post-order. Peel J ruled that LSPOs are only available during active financial remedy proceedings, and not for ancillary matters such as appeals or enforcement, unless a stay is in place.
Henry and Anna highlight the implications for vulnerable parties, particularly in cases involving economic abuse. Set aside and enforcement applications, which often arise from non-disclosure or fraud, are excluded from LSPO eligibility, potentially leaving individuals without legal support.
They conclude by urging practitioners to carefully consider the wording of clean break clauses. While the judgment provides clarity, it may unintentionally restrict access to justice for those needing further legal action after a final order.
Read the full article on the Financial Remedies Journal website [external link].