J v J

In financial remedy proceedings, the court may adjust the division of assets to equalise a disparity in the parties’ litigation costs. Any further costs order for litigation misconduct must take account of its financial effect and must not undermine a primary disposition based on need. Expert evidence should ordinarily be provided by a single joint expert where possible. Parties must comply strictly with the one-bundle rule in financial remedy hearings. The court also stressed the need for structural reform, including fixed pricing and early costs caps, but those observations were directed to law-makers and the Family Procedure Rules Committee.

The wife sought financial remedy orders following the parties’ separation after an eighteen-year marriage. Their assets included a former matrimonial home, property interests, pensions and the husband’s substantial business interests. By the final hearing, the parties had incurred approximately £920,000 in legal and expert costs.

The court determined the value and allocation of the assets, the wife’s interim support, the timing of a clean break, and whether the husband’s litigation conduct justified an additional costs order under the Family Procedure Rules. The judgment also addressed failures to use a single joint expert and to comply with the prescribed limit on court bundles.

1. Disposition and asset division. The matrimonial assets were divided substantially equally, subject to an adjustment of £182,000 to equalise the parties’ unequal costs expenditure. The wife was awarded the former matrimonial home, interim financial provision, a percentage of the husband’s net share-sale proceeds and an equal share of the pensions. A clean break was to follow sale of the husband’s shares.
2. Costs and conduct. The court applied the approach in RH v RH and [2008] 2 FLR 2142 and LS v JS (Appeal: Costs) and [2012] EWHC 2690 (Fam) by equalising the costs disparity through the substantive division of assets. A further order under FPR rule 28.3(6) and (7) was permissible because of the husband’s litigation misconduct, including failures concerning experts and bundles. However, rule 28.3(7)(f) required the court to consider the financial effect of the order. The misconduct therefore attracted only a symbolic additional order of £50,000.
3. Expert evidence. Part 25 of the Family Procedure Rules and PD 25D para 2.1 required a single joint expert to be used wherever possible. No sufficient reason had been shown why that course was impossible. Allowing each party to instruct a separate expert materially contributed to the excessive costs.
4. Bundles. PD27A para 5.1 required a single bundle of no more than 350 pages unless prior permission for a larger or additional bundle had been obtained. The parties’ use of twelve bundles was a serious and unjustified breach. Permission granted retrospectively at the adjourned hearing did not cure the failure to comply with the rule’s intended procedure.
5. Wider observations. The judge recommended fixed pricing and early judicial costs caps for financial remedy proceedings and indicated that the judgment would be drawn to the attention of the President and the Family Procedure Rules Committee. These observations were policy recommendations rather than necessary grounds for the orders made.

First-instance financial remedy determination in the High Court (Family Division). The judgment does not state any prior appellate decision.