Family Law Hub

Costs

Latest updates

  • An assessment of whether the husband had an outstanding needs claim which the wife should meet. The husband had no realistic prospect of meaningful employment. Cohen J held it would be proper to provide an award of £325,000 to meet the husband's needs for an income and a further £10,000 for a car replacement. However, the case had been conducted by the husband in a manner that Cohen J found to be irresponsible and unreasonable. The wife did not seek her costs from the husband, and Cohen J saw no reason why she should pay the husband's unreasonably incurred costs. Inclusive of costs of £150,000, the husband would receive a total award of £485,000. Judgment, 27/01/2020, free
  • The Court of Appeal recently gave judgment in Read v Panzone & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1662, an appeal concerning s37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The Court gave significant warnings to first instance judges about the dangers of making findings of fact on alternate bases: although judges may be tempted to take this ‘belt and braces’ approach, it may simply muddy the waters and confuse the issues for the parties. News, 06/12/2019, free
  • The hearing concerned applications: for costs, for a general civil restraint order, and for an injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 against “an exceptionally vexatious litigant”. News, 14/11/2019, free
  • An extended civil restraint order had not been sufficent to restrain the former husband's vexatious conduct. Mostyn J granted the former wife and the receiver orders for costs against the husband. He also made a general civil restraint order against him, calling it "one of the worst cases of vexatious litigation misconduct" that he had ever encountered. An order was also made under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Judgment, 23/10/2019, free
  • An appeal from orders for costs made against those responsible for keeping two children in the Ukraine, in breach of repeated orders of the High Court. This was described by Peter Jackson LJ as "the grossest breach of trust perpetrated by individuals who appear to consider obedience to the law to be optional and disobedience affordable". He considered that there was nothing remotely surprising about the orders made in this case, and indeed found it difficult to envisage any proper alternative. Patten LJ and Lindblom LJ agreed, and the appeals were dismissed. Judgment, 30/07/2019, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

  • In this recorded webinar, Petra Teacher from 29 Bedford Row discusses how the courts have dealt with add-backs and financial conduct arguments. Webcast, 14/06/2017, members only
  • Recording of webinar first broadcast on 8 February 2017 Webcast, 10/02/2017, members only
  • Course Objective: By the end of the session you should have an understanding of the regulatory issues relating to unbundled services and learnt how you can manage your client when offering such services. First broadcast on 3 February 2017. Running time 69 mins. Webcast, 07/02/2017, members only
  • Philip Cayford QC and Simon Calhaem of 29 Bedford Row, who represented Mrs Wyatt in the Supreme Court, are joined by members of the Mills & Reeve family law team to review and discuss the issues raised by the case and the impact of the Law Lords decision on practice. Webcast, 18/03/2015, members only
  • Webcast recorded on 22 January at 1pm. Lysney Cade-Davies and Petra Teacher of 29 Bedford Row review some of the leading cases of 2014 and highlight the lessons for the year ahead. Webcast, 22/01/2015, members only

Latest sources

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item