Case No. NP20D02617

91.The disparity between the parties’ costs is stark. H having paid almost all the expert fees has incurred costs of £257,255. W, without that expenditure, has incurred costs of £403,150. This is woefully excessive for what should have been a standard financial remedy case. She was attended at trial by leading and junior counsel and by a senior partner and an associate of her central London solicitors. 92.W told Mostyn J at the pre-trial review held very shortly before the final hearing that her costs incurred were some £230,000 with a further £151,000 anticipated. Even these very large figures were over £20,000 short.93. I regard the sum expended by W as excessive for the following reasonsi)It is disproportionate both as between the parties when their costs are compared but also when compared with the value of the assets; andii)W’s approach was misconceived. The conduct argument took at least two days of the hearing and it added nothing. Her sharing claim was unarguable.94.I must also have regard to the parties’ open offers. There is an obligation on the parties to negotiate reasonably as provided for in FPR, PD 28A at paragraph 4.4 which reads:In considering the conduct of the parties for the purposes of rule 28.3(6) and (7) (including any open offers to settle), the court will have regard to the obligation of the parties to help the court to further the overriding objective (see rules 1.1 and 1.3) and will take into account the nature, importance and complexity of the issues in the case. This may be of particular significance in applications for variation orders and interim variation orders or other cases where there is a risk of the costs becoming disproportionate to the amounts in dispute. The court will take a broad view of conduct for the purposes of this rule and will generally conclude that to refuse openly to negotiate reasonably and responsibly will amount to conduct in respect of which the court will consider making an order for costs. This includes in a ‘needs’ case where the applicant litigates unreasonably resulting in the costs incurred by each party becoming disproportionate to the award made by the court. Where an order for costs is made at an interim stage the court will not usually allow any resulting liability to be reckoned as a debt in the computation of the assets. 95.I find that W has set her sights far too high. She has increased her claim rather than sought to mitigate it. H’s offer is far closer to the mark that of W. W should have responded to what was a realistic offer in a constructive manner.96.H is not exempt from criticism. His somewhat half-hearted reliance on the PNA was not realistic. 97.H has already paid under LSPOs the sum of £211,000 to W. It would not be fair in the light of the above to require H to (i) clear W’s mortgage on the investment property or (ii) to clear all W’s outstanding costs. I have already commented that rather less than half the outstanding mortgage was used to pay costs. In addition, I have assessed W’s rental income after deduction of the costs of her mortgage. I therefore leave her with that debt.98.I have decided that H should pay to W a further sum of £80,000 on account of W’s costs. That will mean that H will have paid some £290,000 towards her costs. 99.I have of course looked at where this would leave the parties. W will have a liability to her solicitors of some £70-80,000. I cannot be more precise because (i) there is an unexplained discrepancy between the asset schedule and the Form H1; and (ii) W is seeking a refund from her previous solicitors. That W is left with a costs bill to pay is entirely the result of her prodigal expenditure on costs and her approach to this litigation.100.I am satisfied that she can meet that liability, whatever it turns out to be. She will have the choice of dipping into her income fund or raising a mortgage of a similar size to that which she had before. Either way, I am satisfied that she can manage the debt.101.I am equally satisfied that H can meet the payment required of him and it is comfortably within his means. He may regard himself as hard done by in having to contribute further to W’s costs but there is no other way of meeting her needs.102.I have looked at the matter globally and stepping back, I am satisfied that the outcome is fair given all the circumstances set out in this judgment.103.The result therefore is that H will pay a lump sum of £293,261 plus a pension share of 12.1% of the SIPP benefits. He may offset against the lump sum the figure of £2,013 (if that be the agreed figure) pursuant to the order of 4 October 2021.