GS v L

In financial remedy proceedings, the general rule is that each party bears their own costs. The court may depart from that rule where a party’s conduct in relation to the proceedings makes a costs order appropriate. The relevant conduct includes pursuing unreasonable issues, disproportionate litigation, non-compliance with orders and inadequate disclosure. The court must consider the factors in FPR 2010 Part 28.3(7), including proportionality, the parties’ offers, the manner in which issues were pursued and the financial effect of the order. There is no requirement to prove a separate category of significant additional costs or to identify those costs precisely. Where practicable, an issue-based order should be expressed as a proportion or by reference to a date, although the resulting proportion may be converted into a stated sum.

The applicant wife sought a contribution towards her costs following financial remedy proceedings arising from the breakdown of her marriage to the respondent husband. She alleged that the husband’s insistence that the case should be determined in Spain or under Spanish law, his reliance on Spanish expert evidence, failure to comply with orders and late disclosure had caused disproportionate expense and lengthened the hearing.

The wife applied for an issue-based costs order under FPR 2010 Part 28.3. The central issue was whether the husband’s conduct justified departing from the general rule that costs lie where they fall and, if so, how the order should be quantified.

1. Costs jurisdiction. In financial remedy proceedings the starting point under FPR 2010 Part 28.3(5) is that the court will not order one party to pay another’s costs. Under Part 28.3(6), the court may make such an order where it considers it appropriate because of a party’s conduct in relation to the proceedings.
2. Relevant conduct. The court must consider the factors in Part 28.3(7), including non-compliance with rules or orders, open offers, the reasonableness of raising or pursuing an issue, the manner in which the case was conducted, other relevant conduct and the financial effect of the order. The overriding objective requires proportionate use of court resources. The parties share the obligation to further that objective.
3. There is no additional requirement to establish significant extra costs or to identify an increase above a supposed natural level of costs. Such a gloss would add complexity and expense contrary to the procedural rules.
4. Where an issue-based costs order is justified, CPR 44.3(7) requires the court, if practicable, to order a proportion of costs or costs from or until a specified date rather than require detailed issue-by-issue assessment. The court may nevertheless translate the resulting proportion into a stated sum.
5. The husband’s conduct was substantially disproportionate. His Spanish-law approach, unsuccessful stay application, irrelevant Spanish evidence, inadequate open offer, non-compliance and late disclosure materially increased the length and cost of the proceedings. The court ordered him to pay £55,000, broadly one third of the wife’s unassessed costs.

First-instance application for costs following financial remedy proceedings. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.