Case No. BV19D14014

12.Let me set out the respective positions and amounts.13.The former husband had lawyers from the beginning, which was a fairly substantial voluntary disclosure exercise, continuing after Form A until a couple of months before the FDR. I don’t know the firm and as far as I can tell, the charging rate was quite modest. At the end of the trial, he owed them £7905 and he had paid earlier in the proceedings £16,500 from marital resources. In other words, a total of about £24,500 costs. Itself quite high.14.The former wife had instructed well regarded central London lawyers. At the end of the trial, she owed them £28,407.54 but had costs already paid from marital resources of £100,549.29. In other words, only £1000 short of £130,000. Moreover this was notwithstanding that, from a date in mid spring after the February FDR and until late August 2022 preparation for final hearing, they came off the record when there was little work to be done in order rightly to save unnecessary costs. This was a large level of costs, as I expressed at the hearing, which I felt I couldn’t ignore especially in the context where those costs had come out of the marital pot and thereby specifically diminished what would otherwise be shared equally. This was the heart of my concerns about costs for the outcome in the fairness exercise15.I was given a better breakdown of her charges. The FDR was on 7 February 2022. At that time, recorded in that order, she had incurred charges of about £83,000. On 25 February 2022, her lawyers wrote an excellent open offer which was very close to the terms of the final settlement and I found should have been accepted by the former husband. They gave 14 days for acceptance i.e. 11 March 2022. Thereafter, from 11 March 2022 until the end of trial they declared she incurred costs of £35,878, about £36,000. This needed to be unpacked16.If her total costs were £129,000, and £36,000 was incurred from 14 days from the date of the offer of 25th February 2022 until the end of trial, then the amount of costs incurred until that date was £93,000. At the FDR she had incurred costs of about £83,000. Therefore there had been £10,000 work from the end of the FDR on 7 February 2022 until 11 March 2022 i.e. 14 days after the making of the offer of 25 February 2022. I felt that was high but certainly not well out of the realm of work in central London.17.At the first appointment on 7 July 2021, 7 months before the FDR, the former wife declared she had already incurred costs of about £38,000. In other words, the work between the end of the first appointment and the end of the FDR was approximately £45,000. I’m bound to say that seems quite a lot in a case where the issues were so relatively straightforward. 18.Moreover costs of £38,000 to a first appointment also seem high. However I was told there had been a lot of pre-issue voluntary disclosure which had taken up time and costs; voluntary Forms E and a couple of rounds of questionnaires. This might explain the figure. Voluntary disclosure is great if it works quickly and efficiently but if not, it’s often better to run through the court-based process19.So, in summary £38,000 to the first appointment inclusive of some voluntary disclosure, another £45,000 to the FDR, another £10,000 to a date about a month later being 14 days after an open offer had been sent and then another £36,000 to the end of the final hearing. In total about £130,000.20.Probably more in parenthesis, I have throughout most of my career worked in central London as a solicitor and have sat as a deputy only in London (PRFD and CFC) since 1995. But 18 months ago, I started sitting in the Exeter Family Court in parallel with sitting still in the CFC. One of the biggest differences, and I suspect it is generally outside of London rather than specifically Exeter, is the level of costs. I have had final two-day hearings, well prepared and represented, where the costs of each have been £38,000, which only shows the huge chasm existing in the practice of family law around England and Wales at the present time.21.When I queried this quantum, I was told that the respondent former husband had in correspondence complained about the conduct of the case by his former wife’s solicitors and either did or threatened to copy in the senior partner and moreover either did or threatened to refer to the Law Society, SRA and the ombudsman. Consequently, it was felt by the partner in charge that she should take a greater involvement than otherwise and I was sympathetic. The stated threat of complaints within or without the firm from a dissatisfied litigant must warrant a higher level of involvement. As I said at the oral judgement and as a general comment, if these threats are made the party making them must expect the costs will be higher and this may be a consequence in a costs order.22.That was a partial satisfactory explanation but even so it still seemed high. I reminded myself this was not a case of hidden assets, offshore assets, assets held in the name of 3rd parties, assets held through corporations and trusts and the various other normal complexities which daily arise in central London family law finance litigation. If there was no review of the costs already paid by the wife to her lawyers from the marital pot (and that would be a very difficult exercise), the husband in person would in effect be paying one half of them. 23.Therefore in fairness according to law and in circumstances where the costs were high in the totality of the marital pot and the amounts in issue, how was I to deal with the 3 elements namely the outstanding costs liability of each in the sharing exercise especially that of the former wife, the costs each had disproportionately taken out of the marital pot and the costs order I was inevitably going to make against the husband because of the conduct of the case