A few examples
68.Without being unnecessarily simplistic, I go through a few examples69.Marital assets are £100, no legal costs incurred by either party100 Equal division 5070.Same situation but each has drawn 6 from the assets for their legal costs100 Total deducted already 12 In the pot 88 Each receives 44 Brought into account what each has advanced to themselves, each has 5071.Same situation one has drawn 6 and the other has drawn 8 for the legal costs100 Total deducted already 14 In the pot 86 Each receives 43 I think in this fairly marginal situation the court is unlikely to interfere, perhaps on the basis that one party has had to do more work in respect of the case72.Same situation, one has drawn 6 but the other has now drawn 26 100Total already deducted 32In the pot 68Each receives 34Herein lies the potential unfairness and inequity. Whereas if they had both taken 6, a party would have 44 as above, in this instance the party which only took 6 now has 34, for the only reason of the actions of the other party unilaterally taking more from the marital pot. If the costs already drawn are notionally brought back in, that party has 34 + 26 namely 60, contrast 40 of the other on the same basis and in equal sharing. Under what circumstances can the unilateral action by that one party mean this outcome should be fair?
- Reserved Written Judgment of Deputy District Judge David Hodson
- Introduction
- The summary elements of the case itself
- Costs amounts
- Should I intervene at all?
- [2022] EWCA Civ 772
- [2018] UKSC 12
- First aspect: How to deal with outstanding legal costs in the sharing exercise
- element: Costs orders between the parties in a sharing case
- Third element: Bringing back the “advanced” costs already paid out
- A few examples
- Conclusion
- Postscript