HO v TL (Costs) [2023] EWFC 216
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.
Polly Morgan | Case Editor
Ashley Murray
Latest
Of Dogs and Divorce
Pre-Nuptial Agreements: an ‘Oven-Ready’ Solution to a Pressing Problem? A House of Lords Debate
