RKV v JWC (No 2) [2025] EWFC 429 (B)

Judgment date: 5 December 2025

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2025/429

Overview

Wife is granted a costs order for legal costs on the indemnity basis due to the husband’s ‘complete and multi-faceted’ misconduct, namely deception and refusal to comply with court orders.

Notwithstanding the opportunity provided by Recorder Rhys Taylor in the substantive judgment, RVK v JWC [2025] EWFC 430 (B), the parties were unable to avoid disagreement as to costs. This judgment relates to the determination of a costs order for the proceedings.

Recorder Rhys Taylor considered FPR Part 28 and concluded that the husband’s misconduct falls under FPR 28.3(7)(a), (c), (d) and (e). He noted that FPR 28.3(7)(f) remained in his contemplation; [5] and [6].

The husband argued that there should be no order as to costs or alternatively, that any costs order should be on a standard basis. It was submitted that the wife’s quantum of costs was excessive.

Judgment

Recorder Rhys Taylor held that a costs order was inevitable, and indemnity costs were warranted; [10], [11].

• The test for an indemnity costs order was satisfied: the conduct of the husband both fall outside the norm and was exceptional. Here, it was ‘so appalling and outside the norm’; [11].
• The wife’s costs must have been ‘reasonably incurred’ but he was not obliged to determine the proportionality of her costs; [11].
• Any doubts that might be held as to the proportionality of the wife’s costs must be resolved in the wife’s favour; [11].
• The husband complained about the wife’s quantum of costs and that he had paid £400,000 pursuant to two LSPO orders. However, 50% of the £400,000 came from the wife’s notional share and was already taken into account in the wife’s spreadsheet detailing her costs; [13].
• The wife was entitled to instruct a leading central London firm; [14].
• The level of costs of attendance at the final hearing was not relevant because costs were being assessed on the indemnity basis; [15].
• It was ‘right and proper’ for the wife’s solicitors to be present at the final hearing due to developments throughout the hearing; [15].
• Recorder Rhys Taylor disagreed that the wife’s costs were ‘eyewatering’ and stated that a comparison of costs would be ‘invidious’; [16], [17].
• He acknowledged that the case was complex and, even if the parties’ conduct had been reasonable, that costs would have been incurred to reach a settlement at an FDR; [18].
• H invoked the ‘double the costs’ from FDR to a final hearing convention to highlight how far out of the norm the wife’s costs are. The judge said this applied to ‘normal’ cases. H’s conduct rendered this far from a ‘normal’ case; [18].

Outcome

The judge made the following orders in favour of the wife:

• Costs order, on the indemnity basis, of £159,558.
• A ‘costs of the costs order’ for 70% of the sum claimed, on the standard basis, amounting to £3,893.75.

Total costs payable £163,451.75.