HO v TL (Costs)
[2023] EWFC 216
DH v RH (No 4) (Costs)
24 May 2024
[2024] EWFC 114
Family Court
A couple went through a very expensive divorce. The wife acted badly in court, ignoring orders and causing extra costs. Even though the judge already gave the wife more money because she spent too much on lawyers, he made her pay extra to the husband for her bad behavior. This shows how important it is to follow court rules and not waste money during a divorce.
Key Facts
- •Financial remedy proceedings with combined costs of £2.9M (approximately 23% of assets).
- •Wife (DH) incurred £1.9M in costs, Husband (RH) incurred £1M.
- •Wife's litigation conduct repeatedly raised concerns from the court.
- •Wife alleged husband hid assets (between £170M and £210M), which was rejected by the court.
- •Court added back £800,000 to account for wife's reckless expenditure on legal costs.
- •Wife failed to comply with numerous court orders and practice directions.
- •Wife stole confidential financial information and made a without-notice application.
- •Wife failed to make an open offer to settle.
- •Final order: Wife received 52% of assets, Husband received 48%.
Legal Principles
General rule in financial remedy proceedings is that the court will not order one party to pay the other's costs.
FPR 2010 r.28.3(5)
Court may order one party to pay the other's costs if the conduct of a party warrants it.
FPR 2010 r.28.3(6)
Factors considered in determining costs orders include compliance with rules and orders, open offers, reasonableness of pursuing allegations, manner of pursuing the application, and financial effect on parties.
FPR 2010 r.28.3(7)
Duty to make open proposals after FDR or before final hearing.
FPR 2010 r.9.27A & r.9.28
Refusal to negotiate reasonably and responsibly can result in costs order.
FPR PD 28A paragraph 4.4
Adding back dissipated assets doesn't preclude a costs order.
M v M [1995] 3 FCR 321, WC v HC [2022] EWFC 40, HD v WB [2023] EWFC 2
Outcomes
Wife ordered to pay £200,000 of husband's costs.
Egregious and persistent litigation misconduct materially increased husband's costs. Wife's needs met by final order.
Wife ordered to pay £25,000 for costs related to the 'Immerman' exercise.
Costs arose from wife's theft of confidential financial information.
Wife ordered to pay £30,654.50 for costs related to the without-notice application in September 2023.
Application made without notice despite husband's notification of intended asset liquidation.