Key Facts
- •Father (MB) sought the summary return of two children from England to Qatar after their mother (KB) removed them in July 2023.
- •Father's application for summary return was dismissed in a previous judgment.
- •Various costs disputes arose between the parties regarding the costs of the application, expert reports, document translation, and an unsuccessful application for disclosure against the Home Office.
Legal Principles
Award of costs is within the court's discretion.
CPR r.44.2
In child abduction cases, the usual order is no order as to costs, unless a party's conduct was unreasonable or there's a disparity of means.
SB v MB (Costs in Hague Convention proceedings) [2014] EWHC 3721 (Fam)
Reprehensible behaviour or an unreasonable stance can justify an adverse costs order.
Re T (Costs: Care Proceedings: Serious Allegation Not Proved) [2012] UKSC 36
The court should consider all circumstances, including the conduct of parties, whether a party succeeded in part, and pre-action conduct.
CPR rule 44.2 (4) and (5)
Where the court makes an order without mentioning costs, no party is entitled to costs.
CPR r.44.10(1)
Outcomes
No order as to costs generally.
The father's application was not considered reprehensible or unreasonable given the mother's unilateral removal of the children.
Both parents to share equally the costs of the expert report on Qatari law.
Expert evidence on Qatari law was necessary for the welfare assessment, despite the expert's unsatisfactory evidence.
Both parents to share equally the costs of document translation.
Translation of the Qatari judgment was necessary; other translations, while less crucial, were considered relevant and modest in cost.
No order as to costs for the father's unsuccessful Home Office disclosure application.
The application, while unsuccessful, was not deemed reprehensible or unreasonable.