HO v TL (Costs)
[2023] EWFC 216
Jenny Alzena Helliwell v Simon Graham Entwistle (Costs)
20 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 1298 (Fam)
High Court
A wealthy couple fought over money after their divorce. The husband made unreasonable demands and refused a fair settlement offer, leading to massive legal bills. The judge made the husband pay some of the wife's legal costs to teach him and others a lesson about behaving reasonably in divorce cases.
Key Facts
- •High-value financial remedy proceedings following a prenuptial agreement.
- •Wife's costs: £26,000, Husband's costs: £23,000 (at this hearing).
- •Total litigation costs exceeding £50,000.
- •Show-cause application regarding the prenuptial agreement.
- •Wife initially claimed maintenance despite substantial assets (£70 million).
- •Husband initially claimed £10 million, later reduced to £2.5 million.
- •Private FDR in April 2023, wife offered £500,000 settlement.
- •Wife subsequently offered £800,000.
- •Judge found the £500,000 offer to be reasonable.
- •Husband's claims deemed inappropriate and unrealistic.
Legal Principles
General rule in financial remedy proceedings: Court will not make an order requiring one party to pay the costs of another.
FPR r.28.3
Consideration of the financial effect on parties of any costs order.
FPR r.28.3(7)(f)
Need is a flexible concept in financial remedy assessments.
Case law (implied)
Litigation cannot proceed without consequences.
Judge's interpretation of legal principles
Outcomes
Husband ordered to pay £75,000 towards wife's costs.
Husband's unreasonable and unrealistic claims, rejection of reasonable settlement offers, and resulting unnecessary litigation costs.
Wife's initial maintenance claim and husband's £10 million claim deemed inappropriate.
Wife's substantial assets and the husband's prenuptial agreement.
£500,000 settlement offer deemed reasonable and should have been accepted.
Proportionate settlement considering the assets and circumstances.