LP v MP [2026] EWFC 36

Cusworth J. Having already been found to have committed personal misconduct during the relationship, costs were awarded against W on an indemnity basis after she was found guilty of significant litigation misconduct also.

Judgment date: 27 January 2026

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/36

The substantive judgment is summarised here. The court found that the marriage was founded on deception and fraud by W, continuing for its duration.

Allegations of litigation misconduct

The judge found that W had ‘treated the High Court with contempt throughout the financial proceedings (just as she did in the children proceedings)’. Specifically:

She failed to attend the First Appointment and the PTR. The reasons given for non-attendance were unconvincing. Her conduct resulted in there being no FDR and no prospect of NCDR.
She failed to serve her Form E in advance of the First Appointment. She sent it to the court after the First Appointment and to H even later. Her Form E did not provide clear and accurate disclosure, and she used her Form E to run a false conduct case. Its deficiencies resulted in H having to seek and obtain third party disclosure orders against Lloyds Bank and the Land Registry.
She failed to provide a single piece of documentation in support of her replies to questionnaire. She accepted in evidence that many of her narrative answers were untrue.
She provided her s 25 statement fewer than two weeks before the Final Hearing. Much of its content was deliberately untrue. She served her response to H’s conduct statement as well as her first and only open offer on the same day. Her offer asked for £14.16m but she ended up receiving less than £2m.

W was given over five weeks to respond to the costs application. The judge found she had deliberately and tactically chosen to remain disengaged from the proceedings and did not fully respond except to deny the allegations.

The costs application

H had incurred £284,875 after the First Appointment until the end of the Final Hearing. An additional £33,326 was sought to reflect the conduct aspect, which was reasonable given the findings made in the substantive judgment. With other minor costs, the total costs sought were £324,352. On an indemnity assessment (marked down by 10%), H sought the sum of £291,917.

W had represented herself and had incurred no costs.

The court conducted a cross check against W’s needs, bearing in mind that, in the substantive judgment, her conduct had resulted in the court finding that her needs assessment should not be performed with generosity, that she was not entitled any further to enjoy the marital standard of living, and that the sum provided to her would provide her with a Duxbury fund well beyond any baseline needs calculation. A costs order in the full amount sought would not impact on W’s ability to house herself or meet her income needs.

The applicable law

Consideration given to King LJ’s overview of costs provisions in financial remedies proceedings in Azarmi-Movafagh v Bassiri-Dezfouli [2021] EWCA Civ 1184. The judge also outlined the test for deciding whether to assess costs on an indemnity basis, as outlined by Joanna Smith J in Cabo Concepts Ltd v MGA Entertainment (UK) Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 2024 (Pat).

Held

W’s conduct in the substantive judgment and the conduct set out above was unreasonable to a high degree. W was guilty of litigation misconduct. As a result, per Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, she should be ‘severely penalised in costs’. Those costs would be assessed on an indemnity basis.

The judge decided that W should meet 85% of H’s costs of £324,352, rounded to £275,000. It would be deducted from the lump sum H was ordered to pay.