SP v DM (Costs)
[2023] EWHC 2482 (Fam)
A (Appeal: Costs), Re
28 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2218 (Fam)
High Court
Two parents fought in court. One partially won an appeal. The judge thought both sides acted badly but not terribly badly. Because it was a children's case, and making one pay the other would make things worse for the child, the judge said nobody had to pay the other's court fees.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning costs in a Family Court case (FA-2023-000275).
- •Appellant sought costs of the appeal after succeeding on two out of three grounds.
- •Respondent resisted the application, arguing their conduct was not unreasonable.
- •Significant financial disparity between the parties.
- •The appeal related to issues arising from the orders of Recorder Searle and HHJ Jacklin KC.
- •The appeal involved allegations of third-party male violence and disputes over the selection of a psychologist.
Legal Principles
General practice of making no order for costs in cases involving children.
Re O (Appeal: Costs) [2024] EWHC 1163 (Fam)
Assessment of whether there is good reason to depart from the general practice of no costs order in children cases.
Re O (Appeal: Costs) [2024] EWHC 1163 (Fam)
Test for unreasonable or reprehensible conduct in costs applications.
Re T Children [2012] UKSC 36 and Re S (a Child) [2015] UKSC 20
Outcomes
No order for costs between the parties.
Both parties' litigation conduct, while frustrating at times, was not deemed reprehensible. The court prioritized the child's welfare and the risk of exacerbating the already poor relationship between the parties. The financial disparity between the parties and the potential impact on the child were also considered.