Re S (A Child) (Costs)

Under Family Procedure Rules 2010, r 28.3, the court may order costs where a party’s litigation conduct is unreasonable. The jurisdiction is engaged where a party persists in legally untenable arguments, causing the opposing party to contest an application unnecessarily. The court may summarily assess the amount payable and reduce a claim where the work or attendance charged is not proportionate or sufficiently justified.

The mother applied for costs following an earlier judgment which concluded proceedings in England and Wales concerning her 18-month-old daughter. The child had been covertly brought from Antigua by her father and remained in England for 10 days. The father had contested the mother’s application to end the English proceedings and discharge the existing orders and undertakings.

The mother sought £6,055, representing her legal costs after a hearing before Newton J. The father disputed both liability and quantum. The central issues were whether his conduct justified a costs order under Family Procedure Rules 2010, r 28.3, and whether the amount claimed should be reduced.

1. Costs liability. The mother was entitled to costs under Family Procedure Rules 2010, r 28.3. The father’s refusal to accept that the English proceedings should end had no foundation in law. His arguments for retaining jurisdiction were plainly untenable and his welfare submissions were devoid of merit.
2. The father’s stated concerns about a fair trial in Antigua, mirroring orders, enforcement and future contact were not proper legal grounds for retaining English jurisdiction. They did not correspond with the legal case advanced on his behalf.
3. The father’s case had required the mother to pursue a contested application and meet his submissions at a full hearing. The litigation conduct therefore fell squarely within the jurisdiction to order costs because of unreasonable conduct.
4. Quantum. The claimed sum represented the full client costs, but no dates or details of the work were provided. Work undertaken by the solicitor familiar with the case was justified, although charging the solicitor’s full rate for attending the hearing, where highly experienced counsel had also been instructed for a substantial brief fee, was questionable.
5. The court deducted £800, representing 50% of the solicitor’s hearing attendance costs, and summarily assessed the costs payable at £5,255.