Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

COSTS: A v A (No 2) [2007] EWHC 1810 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:34 PM
Slug : a-v-a-no-2-2007-ewhc-1810-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 13, 2007, 06:04 AM
Article ID : 88361

(Family Division; 13 July 2007; Munby J)

While strongly deprecating any suggestion that trustees required to be joined as parties to ancillary relief proceedings merely because a trust point was being run, the judge noted that when there was a hostile trust dispute the claim could not usefully or effectively be litigated unless the trustees (absent the beneficiaries) were joined in the proceedings. In this case the wife had been claiming that the trusts were shams and had sought transfer of two properties in which the trust had beneficial interests; the appropriate course in a case such as this was to allow the trustees to intervene in the ancillary relief proceedings, as unless the trustees were joined, no decision would have been binding upon them. Therefore, notwithstanding an earlier protective costs order protecting the wife from paying the trustees' costs, the wife would be ordered to pay such costs with effect from a date that gave the wife a reasonable period within which to respond to the trustees' notice that they were seeking to be released from the protective costs order. Directly or indirectly, this family had incurred costs amounting to 41.5% of the matrimonial assets; as in too many so-called 'big money' cases, such costs were grossly disproportionate to either the amounts or the issues at stake. This wife, whose litigation conduct had led to her payment not only of her own costs, but also of a substantial proportion of the husband's and the trustees' costs had ended up spending over 50% of her final award on costs. That heavy price was the consequence of the misplaced zeal with which she had chosen to conduct a case built on very meagre foundations. It was to be hoped that others would pay heed, and that similar cases would in future be pursued with more circumspection.

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