MacDonald J. Costs judgment following hearing in contentious case involving costs amounting to 23% of the assets.

For previous judgments in this case, see below. By the time of this hearing, the costs amounted to £1m for H and £1.9m for W who was represented under an LSPO. W had failed to make required written submissions as to costs, and the court proceeded without those. Then the outcome of the final hearing had been a 48–52 split in W’s favour, but based on assets of £12m, with the court rejecting W’s assertion that H had a further £210m in undisclosed assets.

H argued that he should receive costs because W’s conduct was at the extreme end of the scale, in that she had:

• stolen H’s confidential financial information resulting in an Imerman exercise
• failed to comply with over 50 case management directions;
• failed to file documents for final hearing and only filed a s 25 statement on day 2;
• failed to particularise her case on non-disclosure and division of assets or put forward offers;
• obtained an MPS order on a stated intention to live in central London when in fact she then moved to Wyoming;
• sought a s 37 order in relation to cryptocurrency assets and a life policy, which H wanted to liquidate to meet his ongoing obligations under the LSPO and MPS orders and where the wife had specifically targeted the policy for that purpose previously;
• behaved during the final hearing in a way that was disruptive and caused considerable delay;
• she emailed large amounts of material to the court following the hearing without making any application to submit further evidence.

Held:

The court had already added back £800,000 for W’s reckless expenditure on legal costs, on the basis that a costs award did not compensate for the reduction in assets available for distribution. The add-back did not prevent a further costs order being made. The costs order did not bite into her needs in this case, but in any event, her conduct was at upper level and she cannot expect to be insulted from the consequences.

W was ordered to pay H £200,000, plus £25,000 for the Imerman exercise and £30,654 in relation to the s 37 exercise (total: £255,654).

For previous judgments in this case see: No 3 (final hearing), No 2 and No 1.