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

The wife contends that the 2021 costs order should remain unaltered. She argues that she comprehensively succeeded in demonstrating in the earlier appeal that Cohen J had not been materially misled by her at a without notice hearing in January 2019; the husband had not challenged this court’s conclusions on that issue on his further appeal to the Supreme Court. The husband had succeeded in his appeal in the Supreme Court on an argument which had not previously been raised.

The husband contends that the 2021 orders should be varied in light of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court; he accepts that he should be liable for the wife’s costs of Cohen J’s de novo determination of her application for leave and in relation to the case arising under the Maintenance Regulation, but does not agree that he should pay her costs of the set aside aspect of the proceedings and associated appeal. Indeed he suggests that the wife should be ordered to pay his costs of that part. That all said, he proposes as a compromise that he should pay 50% of the costs of the 2021 appeal and 50% of the costs before Cohen J, on the basis that each party has succeeded in their respective appeals. 

In relation to the payment on account, the wife seeks an order for the payment of £350,000, representing c.72% of her total costs. The husband disputes that there should be any payment on account; if a payment on account is to be made, he does not appear to dispute the figure.

The wife invites the court to order that the husband should make payment of the costs award within 14 days of her obtaining a licence for him to transfer the money to her out of Russia. The husbandseeks 90 days; he points to (what he describes as) the “formidable practical difficulties” which are likely to arise given that the funds must be routed through intermediary banks in different jurisdictions and at each stage the relevant compliance requirements must be met. He cites potential delays beyond his control. He further points to the fact that in its costs order of March 2024 (see [1(a)] at §7 above) the Supreme Court allowed 90 days for him to comply with sanctions requirements. The wife counters this by arguing that this time-frame was imposed at that time at her request because of her own personal banking difficulties.

The husband wishes to be able to offset from his liability for costs the amount which the wife was ordered to pay in the Supreme Court.  The wife opposes this on the basis that under the Supreme Court order, she has until the conclusion of the whole proceedings to pay those costs (see [1(a)(iii)] of the Supreme Court costs order at §7 above).