SP v DM (Costs)
[2023] EWHC 2482 (Fam)
AM v RF
2 October 2024
[2024] EWFC 288 (B)
Family Court
Two parents fought in court over where their child should live. The judge said the first court decision was fair, but ordered the parents to try mediation to get along better. Because one parent's court challenge wasn't justified, that parent had to pay part of the other parent's legal bills.
Key Facts
- •Appeal from a Lay Magistrates' Order (19 February 2024) regarding child arrangements for 4-year-old C.
- •Parents, AM (Mother, Appellant) and RF (Father, Respondent), have a highly conflictual relationship.
- •Magistrates' order aimed for 50/50 shared parenting, but the mother appealed, arguing it wasn't in the child's best interests.
- •Appeal focused on the division of the child's time between parents, particularly during the school week.
- •Significant costs incurred by both parents (£20,000+).
- •Court considered FPR 3.4(1A) and PD10D regarding encouragement of Non-Court Dispute Resolution (NCDR).
Legal Principles
Court's duty to encourage Non-Court Dispute Resolution (NCDR) in family disputes.
FPR 2010 Rule 3.4(1A), PD10D, X v Y [2024] EWHC 538
In children cases, costs do not automatically follow the event. The paramount consideration is the child's welfare.
FPR 28(1), (2); CPR 44.2(2); Re S [2015] UKSC 20; Gojkovic v Gojkovic (No 2) [1992] Fam 40; Sutton London Borough Council v David (No 2)
Appeals are limited to a review of the lower court's decision unless a rehearing is in the interests of justice.
FPR 30.12
Costs orders in children proceedings are made only in unusual circumstances, such as reprehensible conduct or an unreasonable stance.
Re S [2015] UKSC 20
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
Magistrates' decision was within their discretion and served the child's best interests; the grounds of appeal lacked merit.
Proceedings adjourned for parents to undertake NCDR (mediation).
To improve parental communication and cooperation for the child's welfare.
Mother ordered to pay 50% of father's costs of the appeal.
Mother's appeal was deemed unreasonable, prolonging the conflict and uncertainty for the child; while Father actively pursued mediation, the Mother's engagement was insufficient.