Family Law Hub

Costs

Latest updates

  • 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
  • The mother appealed against an order that she pay £109,394 in respect of the father's costs of a previous appeal. She had dropped that previous appeal after an attempt to bribe a Russian police officer (to instigate criminal charges against the father) led to her imprisonment. King LJ found that the judge had the jurisdiction to make the order for costs, and had made a decision within the ambit of his discretion. However, counsels' fees were unreasonable, and the appeal was allowed on that ground. The sum to be paid was reduced to £78,144. Underhill LJ and Moylan LJ agreed. Judgment, 22/07/2019, free
  • The wife made a claim for financial relief after a divorce in Russia. A claim for £2m was made against her by a company of which the husband had been the sole director. She claimed that this was a sham. The husband did not engage at all with the court during the proceedings, though the company did, and he gave no disclosure of his means. Holman J was satisfied that it was appropriate to make an order for financial relief, and that an award of £5m to the wife, leaving at least £17m to the husband, would not do him any injustice. It was less than the wife would have been awarded had all the proceedings taken place in England and Wales. The wife was also entitled to an order for costs against the company and the husband. The judge recognised, however, that enforcement of his orders would be difficult. Judgment, 09/05/2019, free
  • The husband sought permission to proceed with committal proceedings against the wife for contempt of court, after she made false claims in court regarding her possession of a work by the Polish painter Caziel. Mostyn J declined permission; the husband could pursue the more serious matter of perjury. The husband would recover his costs of the enforcement application on the indemnity basis, and 50% of his costs of the committal proceedings on the standard basis. Judgment, 26/04/2019, 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