Costs
-
Mary-Jane Grace and Ian Douglas Grace [2025] EWFC 37 (B)10 January 2025
HHJ Farquhar. Straightforward financial remedy proceedings continued an additional 2½ years after the agreement at the FDR. Significant litigation misconduct, far beyond acceptable standards, resulting in striking delay and wasted costs orders; criticism also of conduct of W’s solicitor. The judgment provides useful guidance on anonymisation in financial remedy judgments where there is litigation misconduct.
- Cases
- Anonymity and Transparency
- Conduct
- Delay
- Costs
- Litigation Misconduct
-
MB v CD [2024] EWHC 751 (Fam)2 April 2024
Judd J. This case concerned an application by the mother for an LSPO in respect of both financial remedy and Children Act 1989 proceedings.
- Cases
- Housing Need
- Costs
- Legal Services Payment Orders
- Needs
-
WX v HX [2023] EWFC 279 (B)21 December 2023
Mr Recorder Day’s judgment in a case involving complex procedural history, intervenors, non-disclosure and a ‘fragile’ business valuation. Of note is Recorder Day’s inclusion of his earlier decision to refuse a Hadkinson order. The judgment sets out the law of financial remedies clearly and succinctly: it should be mandatory reading for pupils/trainees.
- Cases
- Hadkinson Orders
- Disclosure
- Costs
- Business Valuation
- Valuations
- Intervenors
Arbitrating Costs Provision Applications
There have been few seismic changes in family law that reshaped everything. Much as we would love suddenly to have a new landscape for our professional work, most of us can only hope to find small solutions that work for some small corner of one field. However, bit by bit this may all contribute to an evolving and improving climate in which families change and start their new chapters. Here we hope is one more such.
- Blog
- arbitration
- Costs
!05/12/2024 08:00
-
EC v JC [2024] EWFC 175 (B)13 June 2024
DJ Hatvany. Final financial remedies hearing in a where the assets were modest. The parties were married for 11 years and had twin boys aged 9. An unfortunate feature of this case was that both parties had incurred large costs, which would make clearing their debt on both sides and enabling both parties to rehouse in a three-to-four-bedroom properties close to the boy’s school problematic.
- Cases
- Housing Need
- Spousal Maintenance (Quantum)
- Litigation Funding
- Costs
- Debts
- Modest Asset Cases
- Needs
-
LI v FT (Maintenance Pending Suit) [2024] EWFC 342 (B)19 July 2024
DDJ Harrop. Decision on costs after an MPS application with no clear winner. The court was dismayed by what had been incurred in legal fees contesting the MPS application. W incurred £27,000 in a little over a month and H nearly £12,000. The sums could have paid for the disputed holiday nearly twice over or, as the husband points out, met a term’s school fees. The MPS costs were the context of W having already incurred £100,000 in legal fees up to the FDA, and H’s £26,000.
- Cases
- Maintenance Pending Suit
- Costs
-
GH v H [2024] EWHC 2869 (Fam)12 November 2024
Mr Simon Colton KC sitting as a deputy High Court judge. On W’s application, an interim changing order was made final in respect of sums to be paid to a third party/child of the marriage, with interest granted on the unpaid periodical payments. Held: that the fixed costs regime applied to final charging orders made in family proceedings, with consideration as to when that regime could be disapplied.
- Cases
- Fixed Costs
- Child Maintenance
- Periodical Payments
- Interest
- Loans
- Charging Orders
- Costs
- Third Parties
- Debts
- Enforcement
-
Helliwell v Entwistle [2024] EWHC 1298 (Fam)20 March 2024
Francis J. Costs judgment in ‘paradigm case’ of how not to conduct litigation in a short childless marriage, which started as a show cause application.
- Cases
- Costs
-
Mainwaring v Bailey [2024] EWHC 2614 (Fam)16 October 2024
Henke J ordered the husband to pay the wife’s costs assessed on a standard basis following his ‘hopeless appeal’. In response to the husband’s plea that he should be treated as a litigant-in-person and he did not understand the Family Procedure Rules, Henke J was emphatic that litigants in person are expected to comply with the procedural rules as much as represented parties.
- Cases
- Costs
- Appeals
-
DH v RH (No 4) (Costs) [2024] EWFC 11424 May 2024
MacDonald J. Costs judgment following hearing in contentious case involving costs amounting to 23% of the assets.
- Cases
- Conduct
- Costs
- Add-Backs
©2024 Class Legal classlegal.com
