Postscript
86.I said in this reserved written judgement that I wasn’t aware of any case law directly on these specific points in this sort of situation. Having handed down this judgement on 14 November 2022, on 18 November 2022 was published the decision of HHJ Hess of YC v ZC (2022) EWFC 137. Although not the same facts of course, it was similar territory. Very large payments taken from marital funds. Very substantial disparity in costs. Long marriage. A sharing case. Analysis of whether add back, or perhaps as I have configured it a form of advance or bringing into account, has to satisfy the test of wanton. Quite independently we seem to have come to the same conclusion namely that it doesn’t and is a separate element altogether even if using the words add back. I refer particularly to the helpful and logical analysis at clause 42. We each seem in my opinion on my reading of the report to have worked it through to an outcome in different ways but have reached fairly similar analysis of our concerns about the legal costs and how they are applied in this sort of circumstance. I am publishing this judgment with his support. I hope there will now be careful and practical debate about outcomes in these sorts of circumstances where the separate costs are so very different including in circumstances where they have already been taken from the marital resourcesDDJ David Hodson 21 November 2022
- 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