SM v BA (No 2: Maintenance Pending Suit) [2025] EWFC 2819 February 2025

Nicholas Allen KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge. Application to increase maintenance pending suit (MPS) in ‘super-rich’ financial remedies case.

• Cases

• Interim Relief
• Maintenance Pending Suit
• Costs
• Legal Services Payment Orders

• Abigail Clements-Bewley

VTY v GDB [2025] EWFC 110 (B)24 April 2025

Recorder Taylor. Final hearing in a financial remedy application which concerned issues of non-disclosure and allegations of asset concealment in different countries. The matter also involved foreign litigation which appeared to undermine the existing proceedings in this jurisdiction. The parties married in 1999 and have two adult children and one aged 16. The family structure was a traditional one with H being the breadwinner and W the homemaker.

• Cases

• Foreign Assets
• Non-Disclosure
• Chattels
• Adverse Inferences
• School Fees
• Fraud
• Costs
• Duxbury Capitalisation
• Debts
• Foreign Judgments

• Stephanie Coker

BR v BR [2025] EWFC 884 April 2025

Peel J. Final Hearing in Ultra High Net Worth FR case involving valuations of complex business structures.

• Cases

• Sharing Principle
• Company Valuations
• Wells Sharing
• Experts
• Companies
• Costs
• Valuations

• Minahil Tariq

Kathryn Elizabeth Norman v Michael Ian Norman [2025] EWFC 107 (B)17 April 2025

District Judge Veal. Alleged material non-disclosure, W’s totally without merit application issued in October 2024 after seven rounds of litigation including W’s D50K application, settled by agreement, made when she knew about H’s alleged non-disclosure. W ordered to pay costs on indemnity basis. Warning given regarding the use of websites leading to jigsaw identification and thereby breaching FPR 9.46(3).

• Cases

• Disclosure
• Costs
• Consent Orders
• Setting Aside Orders (Including Barder Applications)

• Elizabeth Bowden

Simon v Simon [2025] EWFC 897 April 2025

Peel J. Cost judgment from Peel J in ‘highly unusual’ financial remedy proceedings, in which a litigation loan provider successfully applied to be joined and to set aside a consent order which prevented them recovering a loan to W.

• Cases

• Conduct
• Costs
• Joinder of Third Parties
• Efficient Conduct
• Consent Orders
• Setting Aside Orders (Including Barder Applications)

• Katherine Luckhurst

T v T and Others (Disregard for Procedural Rules, Adjournment) [2025] EWFC 14 (B)29 January 2025

Recorder Chandler KC was forced to adjourn a three-day hearing in the face of W’s legal aid solicitors failing to comply with the Family Court’s procedures. The judge made it clear that where a legally represented applicant failed to comply with the Family Procedure Rules, practice directions and the Statement of Efficient Conduct relevant to preparing a case for a hearing, it was likely there would be costs consequences.

• Cases

• Costs
• Bundles
• Efficient Conduct

• Elizabeth Bowden

Transplanting Costs Order Principles to LSPOs and Legal Costs Funding Orders

In family proceedings, the court has two key tools at its disposal to address the funding of litigation. The first is via an LSPO to meet the incurrence of future legal fees, and the second, quite distinct in nature and purpose, is a costs order, providing for one party to pay the costs that have already been incurred by the other party.

• Blog

• Costs
• Legal Services Payment Orders

• Grace-Mary Sweeney

!07/04/2025 10:00

DF v YB (No 2: Costs) [2025] EWFC 76 (B)31 March 2025

Mr Nicholas Allen KC. Application for costs following a final hearing.

• Cases

• NCDR
• Costs

• Katie Stephens

D Culligan v A Culligan (No.2) (Costs and Anonymity) [2025] EWFC 2626 February 2025

Judgment dealing solely with the issues of costs and whether the substantive judgment in the financial remedies proceedings handed down on 14 January 2025 should be anonymised.

• Cases

• Anonymity and Transparency
• Costs

• Jessica Holloway

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

• Neive Augustin