SP v DM (Costs)
[2023] EWHC 2482 (Fam)
Re D (Costs of Appeal: Variation or Revocation)
24 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1244 (Fam)
High Court
A mom had to pay a large sum for her ex-husband's legal costs after a long court battle about child abuse allegations. She asked the judge to change the order because of money problems, increased living costs, and the stress it caused her and her daughter. The judge said no, because the judge who made the order already knew she was struggling financially. The new order wouldn't change unless her situation dramatically changed or something unfair happened.
Key Facts
- •Father appealed out of time, granted relief against sanctions, and won appeal in Children Act 1989 proceedings where District Judge found him guilty of sexually abusing his daughter (D).
- •High Court judge (Cobb J) conducted a new fact-finding hearing and found the father did not abuse his daughter; he found the mother's hostility influenced her reporting.
- •Francis J ordered the mother to pay half the father's appeal costs (c. £76,000) with 24 months to pay.
- •Mother applied to rescind or vary the costs order due to financial hardship, increased cost of living, and the detrimental impact on D's welfare.
- •The father's position changed; he no longer seeks direct contact with D and focuses on indirect contact to help D understand the abuse finding was false.
- •Therapy for D is underway (costing c.£2500, split equally).
- •The mother argues Francis J didn't consider her financial circumstances adequately before issuing the costs order.
Legal Principles
Court's power to vary or revoke an order under FPR 2010, rule 4.1(6) is not unbounded; it must be exercised judicially and in accordance with the overriding objective (justly dealing with cases, considering welfare issues).
Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60; Re L and B (Children) [2013] UKSC 8; FPR 2010, rule 1.1(1)
To vary or revoke a final order, the applicant must show a material change in circumstances or that the judge was misled. This includes material non-disclosure or manifest mistake.
Lloyds Investment (Scandinavia) Ltd v. Ager-Hanssen [2003] EWHC 1740 (Ch); TF v PJ; Re F (A Child) [2014] EWHC 1780 (Fam)
While the welfare of the child is relevant, it's not the paramount consideration in varying or revoking a costs order.
N v J (Power to Set Aside Return Order) [2017] EWHC 2752 (Fam)
The court can make an order that a costs order not be enforced without leave, even if the unsuccessful party isn't legally aided, subject to conditions.
Wraith v Wraith 1997 1 WLR 1540; FPR 2010 rule 4.1(4)(a)
Outcomes
The mother's application to vary or revoke the costs order was dismissed.
The mother failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances since the original order was made. Her financial difficulties, while acknowledged, were known to Francis J. The cost of living increase affects both parties. While stress is present, it's not a material change in circumstances justifying the variation of the order.