Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
View all articles
Authors

COSTS: D v H [2008] EWHC 559 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:27 PM
Slug : d-v-h-2008-ewhc-559-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 19, 2008, 06:46 AM
Article ID : 86579

(Family Division; Sumner J; 19 March 2008)

The husband had been awarded costs against the wife, and had applied for a wasted costs order against the wife's solicitors, whose conduct of the ancillary relief litigation had been criticised by the judge. Although the husband subsequently agreed to pay the wife £62,000 and to set aside the order for costs against her, he persisted with the wasted costs application.

The husband had waived rights to the very costs he subsequently sought to recover from the wife's solicitors and the court was not satisfied that the husband could show that any waste of costs had resulted. The husband could, probably, have safeguarded his claim against the firm by appropriate wording in the consent order, but had failed to do so. Furthermore, where the wasted costs application was not protected in the agreement with the wife, there was a risk that the husband might obtain double recovery; he would be giving credit to his wife for specified costs, then seeking to recover the same costs from the solicitors.

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