Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves financial remedy proceedings between LP (husband) and MP (wife). The wife was found to have engaged in litigation misconduct, including failing to attend key hearings, submitting false information in her Form E, and ignoring open settlement offers. The husband incurred costs of £284,875 post-hearing, and the court awarded 85% (£275,000) on an indemnity basis due to the wife's unreasonable conduct. The wife's financial needs were assessed as met even after this costs order.
Issues
- Determining the appropriate basis for assessing costs (standard or indemnity) under FPR 28.3(6)-(7), given the wife's conduct was 'out of the norm' and 'unreasonable to a high degree', warranting indemnity costs of 85% of the husband's claimed £324,352.
- Assessing the financial impact of the costs order on the wife, ensuring it remains fair given her retained assets (£2m) and housing options, while balancing the husband's incurred costs (£284,875 post-First Appointment) and the wife's lack of engagement with settlement offers.
- Whether a costs order should be made against the respondent wife due to her unreasonable conduct in financial remedy proceedings, including failure to comply with procedural rules, false disclosure, and tactical non-engagement.
Holdings
- The court found the wife's conduct in the financial proceedings to be unreasonable and justified a costs order on an indemnity basis.
- The wife was ordered to pay 85% of the husband's claimed costs, totaling £275,000, which will be deducted from her lump sum.
Remedies
- The court ordered the wife to meet 85% of the husband's claimed costs of £324,352 (rounded to £275,000) on an indemnity basis due to her unreasonable conduct in the proceedings, including failure to attend hearings, providing false disclosure, and delaying responses. This remedy was directed to be deducted from the lump sum to be paid by the husband following the financial order.
- The husband was granted a lump sum of £750,000, with Park Street and North Farm transferred to him. The wife waived her claims to the Leicester property and West Road loans. This forms part of the financial remedy following the court's findings regarding the wife's conduct during the marriage and proceedings.
Monetary Damages
275000.00
Legal Principles
The court applied the Family Procedure Rules 2010, r.28.3(5)-(7), emphasizing that costs orders in financial remedy cases are generally prohibited but permissible due to a party's conduct. It referenced Azarmi-Movafagh v Bassiri-Dezfouli [2021] EWCA Civ 1184 and Practice Direction FPR PD 28A, which outline that unreasonable conduct, such as refusing to negotiate or providing false disclosure, can justify a costs order. The judgment also cited Excelsior Commercial & Industrial Holdings Ltd v Salisbury Hammer Aspden & Johnson [2002] EWCA Civ 879, highlighting that indemnity costs are justified when conduct is 'out of the norm' and not merely 'unreasonable to a high degree.' The court concluded the respondent's litigation misconduct warranted an indemnity costs order assessed at 85% of the claimed amount.
Precedent Name
- Excelsior Commercial & Industrial Holdings Ltd v Salisbury Hammer Aspden & Johnson
- Azarmi-Movafagh v Bassiri-Dezfouli
- Suez Fortune Investments Ltd v Talbot Underwriting Ltd
- OG v AG
- Cabo Concepts Ltd v MGA Entertainment (UK) Ltd & Anor
Cited Statute
- Civil Procedure Rules 1998
- Family Procedure Rules 2010
Judge Name
The Honourable Mr Justice Cusworth
Passage Text
- I shall adopt the same approach in considering the submissions made in this case. The wife's conduct in this case... plainly justifies a costs order being made on an indemnity basis, which conduct has been completely out of the norm, and has certainly been unreasonable to a high degree.
- In the light of the wide nature of the discretion to order costs on the indemnity basis I accept the submission made by counsel for the Underwriters that there may be an 'aggregation of factors' which justify an order for costs on the indemnity basis, one of which may be unreasonable conduct though not to a high degree. What matters is whether, looking at all the circumstances of the case as a whole, the case is out of the norm in such a way as to make it just to order costs on the indemnity basis.
- I am satisfied that the wife has quite deliberately chosen to remain disengaged from these proceedings, and in the process has caused the husband to expend very significant amounts on costs, choosing to attend only at the final hearing and to there represent herself. She has done this tactically, and not by accident.