Re: O (Appeal: Costs)

This case concerned an appeal regarding the issue of costs in family proceedings involving children, specifically whether the Respondent should pay the Appellant's costs.

TLDR:

• Costs in issue related to the initial stages of the appeal before the Appellant was legally aided.
• The total costs amounted to £1220, covering various legal expenses.
• The court had to determine whether the Respondent should pay the Appellant's costs.
• The general rule in family proceedings is no order for costs unless there is reprehensible behavior or unreasonable conduct.
• The court found no unreasonable conduct by the Respondent and made no order for costs.

The case involved an appeal regarding costs in family proceedings. The Appellant sought costs amounting to £1220, which included the cost of instructing direct access Counsel, preparing the appeal bundle, and obtaining the transcript of the judgment given at first instance.

Ms Justice Henke presided over the case and considered the skeleton arguments from both parties. The issue was whether the Respondent should pay the Appellant's costs, given that quantum was not in dispute.

The court referred to Section 51(1)(b) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and various rules under the Family Procedure Rules (FPR) and Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) to determine the discretion of awarding costs. The general rule in family proceedings involving children is that there is no order for costs unless there is 'reprehensible behavior or an unreasonable stance.'

The court examined the conduct of the parties, including the lack of pre-appeal communication due to the Respondent's threatening behavior towards the Appellant. The court found that the Appellant's fear of communicating with the Respondent was reasonable and did not constitute unreasonable litigation conduct.

After permission to appeal was granted, the Respondent delayed in instructing Counsel and formulating a response to the appeal. However, the court found no evidence of deliberate delay or prevarication by the Respondent.

During the appeal hearing, both parties agreed on several points, but there remained disputes on specific grounds. The court heard the appeal and found that both parties had modest financial resources, and the appeal would impact their finances and the welfare of the children involved.

Ultimately, the court concluded that there was no good reason to depart from the general rule of making no order for costs in cases involving children. The court emphasized that the Respondent's conduct was not unreasonable or reprehensible, and both parties should bear their own costs.

Legal representatives: Dr. Charlotte Proudman (instructed by Signature Law Ltd.) for the Appellant, Miss Sima Najma (instructed under the Direct Access Scheme) for the Respondent.

Judicial Panel: Ms Justice Henke

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1163 (Fam)