SP v QR
[2024] EWFC 57 (B)
C v S
24 May 2024
[2024] EWFC 109
Family Court
A parent asked a judge for permission to refinance a house and move some money to pay down the mortgage. The house was bought for their child with special needs, using money from a previous court case. The judge said yes, because it was better for the child. The judge also made the other parent help pay for the legal costs of the case.
Key Facts
- •Application by H (husband) to implement parts of a 2020 order by Roberts J in S v C [2020] EWHC 2127 (Fam) concerning monies (£5m damages award) held for their child A (10 years old) with lifelong care needs.
- •H seeks permission to remortgage a property bought for A using £650,000 from the award and to transfer £250,000 from a bank account into the property.
- •W (wife) initially instructed solicitors late, then appeared in person, opposing the application and requesting adjournments.
- •The 2016 consent order established joint conduct of the personal injury claim and investment of monies for A's benefit; and a division of capital assets.
- •Roberts J's 2020 order allocated £900,000 each to H and W for A's accommodation and the balance unconditionally.
Legal Principles
Costs in family proceedings implementing a previous order (liberty to apply) are determined according to CPR 1998, Part 44, as per FPR 2010 r28.2. The 'costs follow the event' rule does not apply.
FPR 2010 r28.2, CPR 1998 Part 44
In liberty to apply applications, even without a formal starting point for costs, the court considers factors such as the unsuccessful party's responsibility for generating costs (Baker v Rowe [2009] EWCA Civ 1162).
Baker v Rowe [2009] EWCA Civ 1162
Outcomes
Application to remortgage granted.
Refusal would prevent A and H from living in the property; no financial detriment to A; order envisages remortgaging; H can secure a remortgage; maintains status quo.
Application to transfer £250,000 from bank account to property granted.
Reasonable for H to invest in the property; no negative impact on A; reduces borrowing and repayments; enhances housing stability; consistent with the original order's intentions.
W ordered to pay 2/3 of H's reduced legal costs (£25,367).
H's application was reasonable; W did not consent, introduced unrelated matters, and caused delays; H made a cost-sharing offer; W's points did not justify refusing the application.