HO v TL (Costs)
[2023] EWFC 216
Alvina Collardeau v Michael Fuchs & Anor
21 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 642 (Fam)
High Court
A wife lost a court case and was ordered to pay the other side's legal fees. The judge thought the fees were too high and reduced them. Because the husband owes the wife money, part of what she owes him will be taken from that debt. The wife gets extra time to pay the rest.
Key Facts
- •Alvina Collardeau (wife) brought contempt proceedings against Michael Fuchs (husband) and William Harrison.
- •Proceedings dismissed on 8 February 2024.
- •Two cost decisions required: debarring application costs and committal application costs.
- •Extensive ongoing litigation between the wife and husband regarding finances and children.
- •Husband withdrew debarring application against wife.
- •Wife's application for permission to bring committal proceedings deemed weak, evidentially flawed, improperly motivated, and disproportionate.
- •Husband and Harrison incurred significantly high legal costs.
Legal Principles
Court may make such order for costs as it considers just.
FPR 28.1
General rule in CPR 44.2(2)(a) (unsuccessful party pays costs) does not apply to family proceedings.
FPR 28.2(1)
General rule in CPR 44.2(2)(a) does apply to committal proceedings (including applications to bring committal proceedings).
CPR 44.2(2)(a)
Costs in committal proceedings generally on an indemnity basis.
JSC v Pugachev [2016] EWHC 258 (Ch), paragraph 56
Contents of Without Prejudice Save as to Costs letters may be taken into account in committal proceedings.
Paragraph 6
If a party discontinues an action, they should pay the costs wasted by the other side (CPR 38.6, applied by analogy).
CPR 38.6, Crowther v Crowther & Ors [2020] EWHC 3555 (Fam), paragraph 49
Costs assessment considers factors in CPR 44.4(3).
CPR 44.4(3)
On indemnity basis, costs may be disallowed if unreasonably incurred or unreasonable in amount (CPR 44.4(1)(b), applied by FPR 28(2)).
CPR 44.4(1)(b), FPR 28(2)
Outcomes
Husband to pay wife £15,132 (60% reduction) for debarring application costs.
Wife's insistence on a contentious recital in the withdrawal order led to unnecessary court hearing.
Wife to pay husband £116,603.50 for committal application costs (significant reduction from original claim).
Husband's costs deemed manifestly excessive and unreasonable; reduction made for overstaffing and unnecessary expenses.
Wife to pay Harrison £189,815.40 for committal application costs (significant reduction from original claim).
Harrison's costs deemed manifestly excessive and unreasonable; reductions made for lack of expert evidence, unnecessary junior counsel, overstaffing, and duplication of effort with husband's legal team.
Wife's costs liability to husband offset against interest owed by husband due to late lump sum payment.
Wife has limited means to pay until receiving outstanding payments from the husband.
Wife to pay Harrison's costs, but payment deferred until 30 April 2024.
Wife's limited means; payment deferred to avoid interest charges, pending potential improvement in financial circumstances after a hearing on 10 April 2024.