Family Law Hub

Costs

Latest updates

  • The father sought an order for the mother to pay one half of the costs of the expert witnesses instructed in the case. The child's care had been transferred from the mother to the father, and the mother had declined to engage in the therapy required by the court and thus contact had not yet been resumed. The mother opposed this application on the grounds that she could not afford to pay a one-half share, and that she did not appoint the parental alienation expert, nor the other professionals involved, nor agree to their instruction. Keehan J said that the latter argument was "totally misconceived": the court had considered their instruction to be necessary and had given permission for their instruction. Keehan J was not persuaded that the mother did not have the means to pay the costs sought by the father. She was ordered to pay £2,783.60 forthwith and the remaining balance in 16 instalments of £500 per month. Judgment, 05/06/2020, free
  • Investigations revealed that the husband had misled the court about the true scale of his unencumbered liquid funds, meaning that the factual footings of a previous judgment were faulty. A new hearing was conducted on Zoom. Mostyn J revised the freezing order, to a total sum of £200,000, and made further costs orders against the husband. A late challenge to the quantum of those costs was rejected. The costs would be assessed on the indemnity basis due to the husband's misconduct. Judgment, 16/04/2020, free
  • Ms Negahbani was in the process of trying to obtain financial support from Mr Sarwar, who denied that they had been married and that he was father of her child. Lieven DBE J had made a Legal Services Payment Order to cover the costs of Ms Negahbani's legal team at the hearing of two of his appeals. He did not pay the sum required, despite having ready access to extensive funds. The appeals were thus automatically dismissed. An eventual application for relief from sanctions was refused. Fair trial rights are subject to the appropriate conduct of litigation, and a litigant who deliberately breached court orders stood at risk of his applications being struck out. Judgment, 07/04/2020, free
  • The husband had sought to set aside a decree absolute and a financial consent order in proceedings involving what was described as "frankly shambolic and unacceptable case preparation", leading to the loss of a full court day and the case being part-heard. The starting point as to costs was set out in FPR 2010 rule 28.1: the court may make any order as to costs "as it thinks just". As a set-aside application this was not within the definition of "financial remedy proceedings" and so rule 28.2 applied rather than rule 28.3. Mr Recorder Allen QC decided that the wife should pay 80% of the husband's costs, and costs were to be assessed on the indemnity basis. Her conduct in dishonestly obtaining a decree of divorce and a financial order had taken the circumstances of this case out of the norm. Judgment, 19/03/2020, free
  • 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

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