Financial Remedies Journal: HO v TL (Costs) [2023] EWFC 216

HO v TL (Costs) [2023] EWFC 2161 December 2023

Published: 05/02/2024 16:06

Polly Morgan | Case EditorPolly is the sole author of the textbook Morgan's Family Law (Oxford University Press 2021) and contributes the chapter on financial remedies to Lamont's Family Law (2nd edn Oxford University Press 2022). An associate professor at UEA Law School, Polly is also Director of the multi award-winning UEA Law Clinic. A solicitor and law firm co-founder, she now practises exclusively in the free family law advice clinic of Norfolk Community Law Service. She is a Transparency Project committee member, former Chair of collaborative pod Good Divorce Group Norfolk, and a former committee member of the Norfolk & Norwich Law Society and Norfolk Resolution.

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2023/216

Peel J. Costs judgment in relation to the FR proceedings which are summarised here.

Each party sought costs against the other. Starting point was each should pay their own costs. Peel J refers to his summary of relevant law in WC v HC [2022] EWFC 40, including that costs can bite into needs, and that sensible attempts to settle the case or unreasonable failure to make such attempts will ordinarily be a powerful factor when considering costs. Incumbent on legal teams to explain clearly that failure to negotiate reasonably on an open basis carries costs risks.

H was somewhat evasive and legalistic about trust interests and a significant amount of time was spent on accessibility, notional allocation and impact of his mother’s death on his interests. Ordinarily this would justify an order for costs. W did not pursue conduct but made pejorative comments of no relevance and while doubtful that this added significantly to costs it might justify a costs order. W did not negotiate reasonably until late in the day and reduced her offers several times. Her approach was unrealistic and speculative. H’s first offer was closer to the mark although the time for payment, over six years, was ambitious. W to pay £100,000 towards H’s costs from her award, notwithstanding this was a needs-based award.