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
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
Emotional harm and interim removal: how psychological thinking can support practice
Dr Ben Laskey ClinPsyD, AFBPS, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, The Psychology PartnershipGeorge Butler, Barrister at Law, 42 Bedford Row ChambersThe family courts are full of cases involving...
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