Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

KS v VS

[2024] EWHC 278 (Fam)
A husband won a court case to move his divorce to Monaco. The wife had to pay some of his legal fees, even though he's much richer, because she lost and her arguments were weak, and his actions made the case more expensive.

Key Facts

  • Husband applied for a stay of divorce and financial remedy proceedings in England and Wales, arguing Monaco was the appropriate jurisdiction.
  • The court ruled in favour of the husband.
  • Husband claimed £421,576.10 in costs, later amended to £331,448.50.
  • Wife argued no costs order should be made due to her inability to pay and the husband's wealth.
  • Husband's conduct contributed to increased costs (delays, non-compliance with directions, etc.).
  • Husband initially pursued a fault-based divorce in Monaco, potentially disadvantaging the wife.
  • The court considered the applicability of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and Family Procedure Rules (FPR) to costs assessment.

Legal Principles

The court may make such order as to costs as it thinks just (FPR 28.1).

FPR 28.1

Subject to rule 28.3, Parts 44 (except rules 44.2(2) and (3) and 44.10(2) and (3), 46 and 47 and rule 45.8 of the CPR apply to costs in proceedings… (FPR 28.2)

FPR 28.2

'No order' principle in FPR 28.3 does not apply to an application for a stay of divorce or financial remedy proceedings.

FPR 28.3

The court must have regard to all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties and whether a party has succeeded on part of his case (CPR 1998, r. 44.2(5)).

CPR 1998, r. 44.2(5)

Costs orders can include various options: proportion of costs, stated amount, costs from/to certain dates, costs related to specific steps, and interest (FPR 2010, r. 28.2 and CPR 1998, r. 44.3(6)).

FPR 2010, r. 28.2 and CPR 1998, r. 44.3(6)

Guideline hourly rates in the 'Guide to the Summary Assessment of Costs' are helpful but not strictly binding in family court, aiming for consistency, proportionality and predictability.

H v GH [2023] EWFC 235; 'Guide to the Summary Assessment of Costs'

Outcomes

The husband's application for a stay was granted.

The court found Monaco to have the most real and substantial connection to the parties.

The wife was ordered to pay £196,000 of the husband's costs.

Summary assessment on the standard basis; considering husband's conduct that increased costs, and wife's weak arguments and financial position; payable upon conclusion of Monaco proceedings.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.