DH vs RH

This case concerned financial remedy proceedings between DH (the wife) and RH (the husband), focusing on the issue of costs following a final hearing.

TLDR:

• DH and RH were involved in financial remedy proceedings.
• The court had to determine the issue of costs.
• The wife's litigation conduct was found to be egregious.
• The court ordered the wife to pay a portion of the husband's costs.

The claimant, DH (the wife), and the respondent, RH (the husband), were involved in financial remedy proceedings. The final hearing took place on 18 April 2024, where the court had to address the issue of costs. The combined costs amounted to £2.9M, with the husband's costs at £1M and the wife's costs at £1.9M.

The court provided the parties with the opportunity to make written submissions as to costs. The husband submitted his written submissions on time, but the wife failed to do so, citing lack of funds to instruct lawyers. Despite extensions, the wife did not provide written submissions, and the court proceeded to determine the issue of costs based on the available information.

The court had previously expressed concerns about the wife's litigation conduct and the extent of her legal costs. The wife had incurred substantial costs in her attempt to prove the husband's alleged non-disclosure of assets, including holdings in cryptocurrency. However, the wife failed to itemize any deficiencies in disclosure as directed by the court.

At the final hearing, the court rejected the wife's case on non-disclosure, concluding that the matrimonial assets available for distribution were as set out by the husband. The court added back £800,000 to account for the wife's reckless expenditure on legal costs, resulting in an overall division of 52% to the wife and 48% to the husband.

The husband asserted that the wife's litigation conduct was egregious, including her failure to comply with court orders, her unlawful accessing of the husband's confidential information, and her failure to negotiate. The court found that the wife's conduct materially increased the husband's costs and warranted a costs order in his favor.

The court ordered the wife to pay a proportion of the husband's costs, amounting to £200,000, as well as the costs related to the 'Imerman' exercise (£25,000) and the without notice application in September 2023 (£30,654.50).

The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to court orders and the consequences of litigation misconduct. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the potential cost implications of unreasonable litigation conduct in financial remedy proceedings.

Legal representatives: Mr. Brent Molyneux KC for the wife, Ms. Alexis Campbell KC and Ms. Sassa-Ann Amaouche for the husband.

Judicial Panel: The Honourable Mr. Justice MacDonald

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWFC 114