Read the full judgment text of FCMC 13921/2010 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 15 July 2013 before Deputy District Judge Carlson.
Matrimonial ancillary relief – Costs – Discretion – Children’s housing needs – Reserved costs orders – Calderbank offers – District Court – Financial relief – RSC Ord. 62. In this matrimonial ancillary relief proceeding, the court ruled on the costs of the application where the parties' joint bills exceeded the lump sum awarded to the wife. The marriage was short, lasting 18 months, with two young sons, one of whom has ADHD. The wife was awarded a lump sum of GBP900,000 plus maintenance. The court considered the wide discretion available in family proceedings regarding costs, noting that while costs follow the event, this starting point is easily displaced compared to ordinary civil litigation. The judgment highlighted the importance of Calderbank offers and the duty to make sensible offers to settle differences, citing Gojkovic v Gojkovic (No. 2) [1991] 2 FLR 233 and Re Elgindata Ltd (No.2) [1992] 1 WLR 1207. The court examined the conduct of the parties, noting the wife's unrealistic expectations regarding the husband's wealth and the hostility generated during discovery. The wife's solicitors sought extensive disclosure which the court found was driven by a perception of hidden wealth that did not exist. Several interlocutory hearings had reserved costs orders which required re-visit. The court determined that the majority of reserved costs should be costs in the cause, with specific exceptions for certain hearings where the wife was unsuccessful or where specific conduct warranted costs against her. For example, the court ordered costs against the wife for an unsuccessful maintenance application and costs in the cause for a discovery application where honours were shared. The court noted that reserving costs for long periods can lead to orders being forgotten or difficult to assess. The court applied RSC Ord. 62, r. 3(3) and r. 9 regarding the discretion to order costs. Ultimately, the court ordered the husband to pay 78% of the wife's costs to safeguard the children's housing position, despite the wife's conduct. Taxation was ordered on a party and party basis. The husband received credit for previous contributions. The ruling emphasized the need to preserve the lump sum for the family's housing needs over strict costs liability between parties. The court acknowledged the wife's pluck and courage regarding her children but found her financial demands unrealistic. The husband's conduct was found generally acceptable, though he was somewhat ungenerous on capital. The final order reflects a balance between penalizing unreasonable conduct and ensuring the children and wife are housed. The court stressed that there can be no carte-blanche in running up costs on the husband's tab. The decision ensures the wife retains sufficient funds for housing while acknowledging the husband's reasonable conduct.
Legal issues: Costs discretion in ancillary relief proceedings · Disposal of reserved costs orders from interlocutory hearings · Proportion of costs to be borne by wife given children's housing needs
Outcome: Husband ordered to pay 78% of wife's costs. Taxation on party and party basis.