Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

Doing the maths: costs orders in the family court

Sep 29, 2018, 18:34 PM
Slug : Bevan-DecFLJ2012
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 11, 2012, 00:33 AM
Article ID : 100983

Chris Bevan

Barrister, KCH Chambers:

The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Re T (Costs: Care Proceedings: Serious Allegation Not Proved) [2012] UKSC 36, [2013] 1 FLR (forthcoming) has returned the issue of costs in family proceedings to the spotlight. In view of the court's judgment, this article asks whether, against a backdrop of imminent and swinging cuts to legal aid, the time has come for the family courts to make greater use of costs orders in both private and public proceedings. In Re T the Court restated the general practice of not awarding costs against a party in family law public proceedings, including against a local authority. The Court made it plain that, in the absence of reprehensible behaviour or an otherwise unreasonable stance by a party, no costs would be granted

Of course, to practitioners, this decision came as no surprise given that unlike other civil proceedings, family law exists as an exception to the accepted principle that 'costs follow the event' (CPR 1998, r 44.3(2)) with the unsuccessful party paying the costs of the successful party. The FPR 2010, r 28.2 expressly excludes the operation of CPR 1998, r 44.3(2) in this regard.

The full version of this article appears in the December 2012 issue of Family Law.

Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from