AM v RF
[2024] EWFC 288 (B)
YE v ZY
6 August 2024
[2024] EWFC 293 (B)
Family Court
A couple fought over their child's care. Mom started the legal battle with false claims and was difficult throughout. Even though they agreed on the child's care in the end, the judge said Mom acted unreasonably and made her pay a share of Dad's legal bills because of it. The judge explained that it's rare to make someone pay legal fees in family cases, but Mom's actions were so unreasonable they made an exception.
Key Facts
- •Welfare proceedings concerning a 14-year-old boy (A) suffering from a functional neurological disorder.
- •Proceedings concluded with a consent order regarding welfare matters.
- •Subsequent protracted dispute over costs.
- •Mother initiated proceedings based on allegations of father's harm to A, unsupported by professionals.
- •Father made a comprehensive settlement proposal before proceedings, which was ignored by the mother.
- •Significant financial disparity between the wealthy parents.
- •Single joint expert (Dr D) highlighted parental conflict as root of A's problems and mother's controlling behavior.
Legal Principles
Costs applications in Children Act proceedings are unusual, especially when proceedings conclude by consent.
Family Procedure Rules
Court considers conduct before and during proceedings, reasonableness of allegations, manner of pursuing the case, offers to settle, when deciding costs applications.
RR Re costs [2021] EWFC 100; Family Procedure Rule 28.1
Costs orders in family proceedings are exceptional due to concerns about diminishing funds for the family, deterring reasonable cases, and exacerbating tensions.
Lord Justice Neill's three categories (referenced in 1997 case at 2 Family Law Reports), as summarised by Lady Hale.
Outcomes
Mother's application for the father to pay her costs was refused.
Mother's unreasonable conduct throughout the proceedings, including initiating proceedings on a false premise, ignoring settlement proposals, and persistently making unsubstantiated allegations.
Father awarded one-third of his costs by the mother.
Mother's unreasonable conduct, while the consent order on welfare matters was in line with the father's pre-proceedings offer. Court considered the exceptional circumstances and significant financial resources of both parties.