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
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
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...
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