Latest articles
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...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

COSTS: Re B (Indemnity Costs) [2007] EWCA Civ 921

Sep 29, 2018, 17:33 PM
Slug : re-b-indemnity-costs-2007-ewca-civ-921
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 21, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88337

(Thorpe, Wall and Moses LJJ; Court of Appeal; 21 February 2007)

Indemnity costs, awarded against the mother for failure to comply with court orders, had been based on an erroneous conclusion that the mother had not participated in the court process in any way. Although the mother had not complied strictly with the relevant order, failing to copy her communications with the court to the father's solicitors, she had communicated with the court, and her communications with the father's solicitors had flagged up the true position. An order for indemnity costs was a most exceptional order in Children Act proceedings; the proper order was no order as to costs.

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