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...
Latest articles
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
View all articles

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 :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from