L A T E R
40I have decided that I am not going to make an order for costs and let me explain why. The reasons that I have come to that conclusion are various. If the parties look at my judgment of 19 January at paragraph 28, the order for costs that I was asked to make was for £188,000 for Children Act costs and £368,000 for an artwork dispute, almost exactly 2:1 weighted to the artwork dispute. So insofar as CD has to pay £158,000 towards her future costs, about £50,000 of that would be attributable to the Children Act dispute and £100,000 attributable to the artwork dispute. The reason I made the order that CD contribute towards her costs was because of the substantial increase that I made in her maintenance provision which I put at about £120,000 a month. It seems to me appropriate, and I felt then, and it has not been appealed, that out of that sum she should pay a contribution towards her own costs. 41So far as this litigation is concerned, I do not think it is easy to put one‟s finger on who has been the winner. It is often said in children‟s cases there are no winners and I do not think there are winners in this case. The mother has succeeded on some points, the father succeeded on some points. I fully accept the force of what Ms King said, namely that the security provision that the father put forward was not even in the right ballpark until the day of the hearing, but I do not think that that would have led to anything other than the contested hearing that has taken place over the last couple of days. I accept that there will be extra costs of implementing this order, but the fact that the parties have only needed one hour of the court‟s time today will, I hope, provide a little bit of a reserve fund to act as a starting point for the meeting of those costs, but for all those reasons I am going to make no order as to the costs of this application.__________