Jenny Alzena Helliwell v Simon Graham Entwistle (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 1298 (Fam)
HO v TL (Costs)
1 December 2023
[2023] EWFC 216
Family Court
The wife won £7.75m in a divorce settlement, but had to pay £100,000 of it towards the husband's legal costs because she didn't negotiate fairly or reasonably for a long time. The judge also criticized both parties' conduct during the case.
Key Facts
- •Financial remedy proceedings between HO (Applicant/Wife) and TL (Respondent/Husband).
- •Wife initially sought £17.2m, later reducing her offer to £12.3m and then £10.9m.
- •Husband's initial offer was £6.5m.
- •The court awarded the Wife £7.75m based on her needs (net figure after debts).
- •Husband was deemed somewhat evasive regarding his trust interests.
- •Wife made personal criticisms of the Husband in her documents.
Legal Principles
The starting point for costs in financial remedy proceedings is that each party bears their own costs. The court may depart from this.
FPR 2010 28.3(6) and WC v HC [2022] EWFC 40
Refusal to negotiate reasonably and responsibly is conduct justifying a costs order. This includes 'needs' cases where costs are disproportionate to the award.
Practice Direction 28A, Rule 4.4
A costs order can be made even if it reduces the needs-based award.
Rothschild v de Souza [2020] EWCA 1215, Traherne v Limb [2022] EWFC 27, WG v HG [2018] EWFC 70
Unreasonable failure to negotiate sensibly will impact costs orders.
OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52
Even in needs-based claims, litigants are not automatically insulated from costs penalties.
Paragraph 13 of the judgment
Outcomes
Wife ordered to pay £100,000 towards Husband’s costs, deducted from her award.
Wife's unreasonable and unrealistic negotiation until late in the proceedings; Husband's evasiveness regarding trust interests; Wife's inclusion of irrelevant personal criticisms.