CA-2024-001698 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1223

We largely favour the wife’s arguments on the issue of costs. We are persuaded not to disturb the award of costs from this court in 2021; we accept that the fundamental basis on which she had succeeded in her appeal before this court in 2021 was not materially challenged in, let alone disturbed by, the Supreme Court, which decided the husband’s appeal on previously unargued grounds (see [40] of the Supreme Court’s decision: [2024] UKSC 3). Further, standing back from the history of the various appeals, the wife can properly be described as the successful party, as she has been given leave to pursue her financial application and, although the general rule does not apply to an appeal from the Family Division (CPR 44.2(3)(a)), there is no good reason why this should not be the “decisive factor” in this case: Baker v Rowe [2009] EWCA Civ 1162, at [25].

In line with CPR rule 44.2(8) we are satisfied that there is no good reason that the wife should not receive a reasonable sum on account of her costs, and the sum claimed (a little over 70% of the total costs claim per her form N260) is in our view appropriate.

It is not open to us to vary the costs order made by the Supreme Court, and therefore reject the husband’s claim for an ‘offset’ of his costs liability.

As for the time for payment, we take the view that the husband should have 60 days to comply with the costs’ orders following notification that the wife has obtained the relevant licence(s) authorising her to receive funds; 90 days seemed to us to be excessive, but we accept the husband’s contention that 14 days imposes an unrealistic time-frame upon him.