Family Law Hub

Costs

Latest updates

  • The former husband applied for a legal services payment order pursuant to section 22ZA of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. As matters currently stood, neither party owned assets of any significant value. The former wife had been engaged in offshore litigation, which so far had proved unsuccessful, reducing but not eliminating the likelihood of recovery from that source. Roberts J was satisfied that legal services funding was not an option open to the former husband, nor was he a candidate for a commercial litigation funding arrangement. Focused legal advice could serve to narrow the issues which were currently preventing a settlement. The question then was whether the former wife was in a position to satisfy a legal services provision order. After considering the criteria in section 22ZB(1)(a)–(g), Roberts J decided that she would be able to procure the funding to meet such an order, and would not thereby be exposed to undue hardship or prevented from obtaining her own legal advice. The former wife was ordered to pay the former husband £95,000. Judgment, 21/11/2020, free
  • In the course of consolidated Children Act 1989 Schedule 1 enforcement proceedings and Children Act 1989 section 8 proceedings, the father appealed against an order for financial disclosure with a penal notice, and a costs allowance order in favour of the mother. He also sought to put in evidence of the mother's alleged non-disclosure and drug use. Williams J refused the father's applications to admit fresh evidence, to amend the grounds of appeal, and for disclosure of the means by which the mother's lawyers were funded through the Children Act proceedings. He had not demonstrated a realistic prospect of success in relation to any of them, nor was there any other compelling reason to grant permission to appeal. The mother sought an order for the father to pay her costs of and occasioned by the appeal and the associated applications. Williams J was satisfied that this was an appropriate case in which to make such an order. Judgment, 05/11/2020, free
  • An appeal against an order prohibiting counsel acting for the father from accepting further instructions from him in proceedings under Part II of the Children Act 1989. The father was from Pakistan, the mother from the UK, and they had married under Islamic law, separating two years later. Counsel in question had previously acted for the father, liaising with the mother, in immigration proceedings, following which the mother had made a complaint of professional misconduct against her. MacDonald J dismissed this appeal. It was possible that counsel's continued participation would lead to a reasonable lay apprehension of unfairness. The judge had not failed to give adequate weight to the potential for the mother to adopt a tactical position amounting to an abuse of process. Given the evidence before the court of counsel's highly personalised responses to the mother's complaints, the potential for difficulties to arise in cross-examination of the mother by counsel was plain. Judgment, 14/10/2020, free
  • The mother had applied without notice for a specific issue order for the father to return their two children to her care, asserting that he had retained them at the conclusion of an agreed period of contact. After the matter was listed on notice to the father, he told the court that he had not returned the children due to concerns about their welfare. No substantive order was made at that hearing. The mother now applied for a costs order. In the view of HHJ Middleton-Roy, this was not a case where it would be appropriate to depart from the general principle that each party should bear their own costs. There would be no order as to costs. He noted with approval that the parties had now agreed to attend therapeutic mediation with a view to improving the communication between them and to resolve issues in respect of the children. Judgment, 25/09/2020, free
  • The mother applied for costs, arguing that the father had acted unreasonably in only conceding the application for summary return at lunchtime on the first day of a three-day hearing. The father's representative pointed out that in a matter such as this, costs did not automatically follow the event and the court had a broad discretion. In Lieven J's view, if either party had been prepared to act more reasonably and take a more consensual approach, costs and court time could have been saved, but it would not be appropriate to depart from the general approach that in family proceedings involving children no order for costs is generally made. Judgment, 29/07/2020, 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