Miah Ibar Lone v Michael Andreas Petrou
[2024] EWHC 153 (KB)
Philip John Mainwaring v Susan Claire Bailey (Costs)
16 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2614 (Fam)
High Court
Someone lost an appeal that the judge said was hopeless from the start. They broke a bunch of court rules, even though they had a lawyer. The judge made them pay the other side's legal costs because of their bad behavior, but not the full amount. The judge said it wasn't intentional but they still had to pay.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against a Family Court decision.
- •Appellant (Mr. Mainwaring) pursued a 'hopeless' appeal.
- •Respondent (Ms. Bailey) sought indemnity costs of £20,240.60.
- •Appellant resisted the costs application, claiming his costs were £18,341 and arguing Respondent shouldn't have engaged before a court order.
- •Appellant's conduct included numerous procedural breaches and an incomplete application for an extension.
- •Appellant was represented by solicitors and counsel despite claiming 'essentially self-represented'.
Legal Principles
High Court, as an appeal court, has power to make cost orders (FPR r.30.11(2)(e)).
FPR r.30.11(2)(e)
Appeal court has all powers of lower court regarding costs in financial remedy proceedings (r.30.11(1)).
FPR r.30.11(1)
In financial remedy proceedings, the general rule is no cost order unless conduct warrants it (FPR 28.3(5), (6)).
FPR 28.3
Appeals are separate from the proceedings they appeal; costs don't automatically follow the event (H v W [2014] EWHC 2846 (Fam)).
H v W [2014] EWHC 2846 (Fam)
Litigants in person must still comply with procedural rules (Re D (Appeal: Procedure: Evidence) [2016] 1 FLR 249).
Re D [2016] 1 FLR 249
Indemnity costs are penal and require more than just a weak legal argument; culpable motive or improper purpose is needed (Arcadia Group Brands Ltd v Visa Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 88).
Arcadia Group Brands Ltd v Visa Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 88
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The appeal was deemed hopeless.
Appellant ordered to pay Respondent's costs.
Appellant's unreasonable litigation conduct and the hopeless nature of the appeal; costs from 16 April 2024.
Costs assessed on the standard basis at £16,192.48.
Appellant's conduct caused additional costs, but no evidence of ulterior motive; 80% of Respondent's claimed costs deemed reasonable and proportionate.