Case No. BV19D14014

1.This discrete judgement solely concerns several issues of legal costs in a wholly sharing case. It does not concern costs in the needs scenario. 2.As I explain further below, it is not the comprehensive judgement in the two-day final financial remedy case which judgement was given orally on the afternoon of the 2nd day, 20 October 2022 with the draft order approved by me on 14 November. As I said in that oral judgement, it was a case which should never have got to Form A, let alone a final hearing, yet total costs in excess of £150,000 had been incurred when the asset base gross of legal costs was less than £1 million and notwithstanding that the respondent was in person from sometime before the FDR. The respondent did not himself raise issues regarding costs but I felt that I had a judicial duty to do so, and I refer to this element more below. A good part of the time in closing submissions with the barrister for the applicant was on the question of the various treatments of costs. Having given oral judgement, with the invariable modicum of time to prepare and with no ability to do a comprehensive analysis of the case law, he asked for a written judgement on this aspect and I agreed. Nothing in this judgement detracts from the oral judgement and is solely limited to that costs aspect. Permission to appeal on this aspect was extended until handing down. I refer to some background aspects for context3.There 3 costs aspects namelya.How should costs owing by either party to their lawyers at the final hearing in the sharing exercise be treated if they are materially different in any wayb.How should the costs incurred by either party and already taken, advanced, from marital assets being shared equally be treated in the sharing exercise if they are materially differentc.How should costs orders between the parties be treated in a wholly sharing case?4.Of course, I am bound by precedent. Nevertheless as we examined the authorities, it didn’t seem to me these issues were clearly set out or at least in these particular circumstances which I suggest are not unusual for solicitors, barristers, arbitrators and mediators daily resolving cases around the country.