The Pressure Letter: How Spousal-Maintenance Threats Work

He’d spent weeks assembling every document—tax returns, bank statements, property valuations, and debt schedules—ready to finalise disclosure.

Then the email arrived.

“Our client requires urgent support. Unless you agree to pay $800 per week in interim spousal maintenance and $100,000 by way of interim property settlement, our client will commence proceedings immediately.”

The letter was polished and polite, but the message was blunt: pay now, or be dragged through court.

This kind of letter—often timed to land just after disclosure—is designed to push men into quick settlements. It usually cites “urgent financial need” or threatens a Section 77 application for “urgent spousal maintenance.” The pressure works because most men want peace, not paperwork.

But here’s the problem: urgency must be proven, not declared.

Section 77 of the Family Law Act 1975 allows an urgent maintenance order only where there is admissible evidence of immediate financial hardship. That means sworn statements, bank evidence, and proof that the claimant genuinely cannot meet basic living expenses.

When the “need” is asserted but not proven, and disclosure hasn’t been reciprocal, the claim fails the legal threshold. Courts are alive to this tactic—and Rule 12.15 gives respondents tools to fight back.

How the Pressure Game Works

1. Timing. Letters often arrive right after the man’s disclosure—giving the other side visibility of assets before providing their own.

2. Leverage. Threats of interim hearings and cost orders create psychological pressure to “just agree.”

3. Narrative framing. The applicant is painted as destitute; the respondent as withholding.

4. Escalation. If payment isn’t agreed within days, the lawyer files an “urgent” application, even without Form 13 financials or supporting evidence.

The tactic isn’t just legal brinkmanship; it’s strategic fatigue. The goal is to make the man feel that resisting will cost more than conceding.

How to Respond

1. Stay calm and document everything. Keep each letter and note the dates you provided your disclosure.

2. Request reciprocity. Politely point out that spousal-maintenance applications require both parties’ financial statements.

3. Invoke Section 77 correctly. State that without admissible evidence of “immediate need,” an urgent maintenance claim is not maintainable under the Act.

4. Refer to Rule 12.15. Non-compliance with the Rules (missing disclosure, improper affidavit, or frivolous urgency) can justify a costs order against the applicant or even their solicitor personally.

5. Seek reimbursement of costs if the lawyer pursued a defective application after being warned in writing. Courts may order repayment of your costs and, in some circumstances, require the law firm to refund fees they charged their client for bringing a baseless claim.

Template: Response to a Section 77 Threat

(For educational use – adapt for your own matter; not legal advice.)

[Your name]

[Address]

[Date]

Without Prejudice – Save as to Costs

To: [Opposing law firm name]

Re: Proposed Section 77 Application for Urgent Spousal Maintenance

Dear [Name],

I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated [date] asserting your client’s intention to file an urgent application for spousal maintenance under s 77 of the Family Law Act 1975.

At this stage, your client has not provided:

1. a completed and sworn Form 13 Financial Statement;

2. admissible evidence demonstrating “immediate need” as required by s 77; and

3. supporting documents establishing either inability to self-support or absence of available funds.

My disclosure was provided on [date] in accordance with Rule 6.06 of the Family Law Rules 2021.

Absent reciprocal disclosure, any urgent maintenance claim would be procedurally defective and incapable of fair assessment.

If such an application proceeds without the required evidentiary foundation, I will rely on Rule 12.15(1)(b) and Rule 12.15(2) to seek costs on the basis that the proceedings were improperly commenced or maintained.

I will also rely on the principles in Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205 (UK) and In the Marriage of Foley (1991) FLC 92-217 concerning unreasonable or disproportionate litigation conduct.

Should your client nevertheless instruct you to proceed, I ask that you confirm in writing that you have advised her of:

• the disclosure obligations under Rule 6.06;

• the evidentiary requirements under s 77; and

• the potential for personal cost consequences under Rule 12.15 if the application is later found to be unreasonable, vexatious, or unsupported by evidence.

I remain willing to engage in mediation and to consider any properly supported proposal once reciprocal disclosure is complete.

Yours faithfully,

[Your signature and name]

How the Law Works

Section 77 – Urgent Spousal Maintenance

• Allows the court to make a temporary order only where an applicant demonstrates immediate financial need.

• It is an exceptional measure, not a routine step.

• The applicant must provide sworn financials and evidence of genuine hardship.

Rule 12.15 – Costs for Improper Conduct

• The court may order a lawyer or party to personally pay costs if they:

  
  

  • act improperly, unreasonably, or negligently;

  • commence defective or unnecessary proceedings; or

  • fail to comply with the Rules or directions.

  
  

• It can include repayment of costs the lawyer charged their own client if the conduct inflated or prolonged litigation.

In practice:

If the other side files a Section 77 claim after you have completed your disclosure but without providing their own, you can seek a Rule 12.15 costs order.

Attach your correspondence showing you raised the issue and warned them of the procedural defect.

If the judge finds the application lacked merit or was premature, you can request:

1. reimbursement of your legal costs for responding; and

2. an order requiring the applicant’s solicitor to refund fees charged to their client for pursuing a baseless claim.

Takeaway

1. Threat letters thrive on fear and ignorance.

2. The antidote is calm precision: cite the rule, demand compliance, and keep a clean paper trail.

3. Once lawyers realise you know both Section 77 and Rule 12.15, the bluff loses its power.