FRJ stage

Costs

Costs Orders and Childrens’ Cases

Costs Orders and Childrens’ Cases

Children’s cases in family practice, rarely generate awards for costs. A quarter of a century ago, Hale J (as she then was) explained why the practice of letting each party bear their own costs had developed, in the Court of Appeal decision of R v R (Costs: Child Case)

G v W [2022] EWHC 1101 (Fam)

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2022/1101 Sir Jonathan Cohen. An appeal in Schedule 1 proceedings following Re A (Schedule 1, Overspend, Costs Clawback) ⁠[2022] EWFC 21. Permission was granted to M to appeal the decision to dismiss her claim for additional payments for a nanny, and additional

VV v VV [2022] EWFC 46

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2022/46.html Peel J. Costs judgment following outcome of acrimonious and expensive financial remedy proceedings (summary here). W’s award included what H had paid already towards her legal costs (£400k) plus sufficient to discharge her outstanding legal costs (£237,000)

Goddard-Watts v Goddard Watts [2022] EWHC 711 (Fam)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2022/711.html Sir Jonathan Cohen. Second rehearing of W’s application for financial remedy orders, two previous orders having been set aside due to H’s non-disclosure. W’s application based on H’s knowledge at the time of the (second)

A v V [2022] EWHC 3501 (Fam)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2022/3501.html Mr Justice Francis. A ‘relatively straightforward’ application pursuant to Schedule 1. F’s costs were c.£3.8m and M’s were £1.7m, despite F attending the final hearing as a litigant in person. F ran the millionaire’

Traharne v Limb [2022] EWFC 27

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2022/27.html Cohen J. Final hearing in W’s financial remedies application in which argument centred on a post-nuptial agreement (PNA) entered into by the parties shortly prior to separation. W argued that she had been subjected to coercive and controlling

Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2022] EWFC 30

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2022/30.html Mostyn J. Comprehensive survey of law on anonymisation of judgments; [74]–[142]. Correct question is 'Why is it in the public interest that the parties should be anonymous?' rather than 'Why is it in the public