Case No. BV20D00292

hearing. In narrative evidence, H expressly stated that an order should be made in the terms of the unsigned Post Marital Agreement. It was only in closing submissions that his counsel tempered that stance, saying that the Post Marital Agreement was highly influential rather than determinative. 12.Then again, there were aspects of W’s case which are not beyond reproach. She did not succeed in persuading me that the Post Marital Agreement should be cast aside and ignored because of H’s alleged exercise of undue pressure on her. She did not persuade me that H was colluding with his father to conceal the likely receipt from him of vast sums immediately after conclusion of the proceedings. In a case driven by needs, she did not satisfy me that she should be entitled to a sum to purchase a second home in Switzerland, which was the main difference between the parties’ cases on needs, although she did establish a greater income need than H was prepared to accept. 13.There is a risk in needs based awards, such as the one I have made, of requiring the payer to act as the ultimate insurer of the payee’s costs with little or no incentive on the payee to negotiate reasonably. An applicant for a financial remedies award can, and frequently does, seek a sum which, inter alia, clears all indebtedness including costs. Thus, however high the level of costs incurred by the payee, he/she will frequently seek what amounts to an indemnity for any costs outstanding so as to be able to exit the marriage debt free. Similarly, if and insofar as the payee has already spent large sums on legal fees which have been provided by the payer (either voluntarily or by way of a court imposed legal services funding order), he/she will argue that to be required to reimburse the payer will lead him/her into debt. It is, in my view, important for parties to be aware that even in needs based claims no litigant is automatically insulated from costs penalties, notwithstanding the possible impact on the intended needs award. 14.In this case, although H is to be criticised for aspects of his litigation conduct, W must bear, in my judgment, greater responsibility in the light of her disproportionate needs claim. The most influential factor to my mind is the negotiating stances of the parties. W missed the mark by a wide margin whereas H was proximate to my decision. The combined costs amount, depressingly, to 13% of the total assets. I shall order W to pay £150,000 by way of costs, which takes into account the competing arguments on each side. For the avoidance of doubt, I am looking at the costs aspect holistically, and this decision takes into account the interlocutory hearings and the arguments pursued at trial. Strictly speaking, my costs decision reduces W’s overall award below the total needs based calculation which I have alighted upon although:a.Out of a total award to W of £7.45m, £150,000 is a modest sum. b.The needs award included a “round up” by me from £7.319m to £7.45m for unforeseen contingencies, a sum of £131,000 which is not referable to housing or income needs.c.The authorities make it clear that the fact of an award being based on needs does not prevent the court from making a costs award which reduces the claimant below the level of assessed needs. If that were not the case, no court could ever make a costs award in a needs case (and needs cases account for the vast bulk of litigation in this field). That cannot be right. Otherwise, the payer runs the risk of, directly or indirectly, being responsible for all costs on each side even if the payee has litigated unreasonably.15.I note that the net effect on the parties’ costs liabilities may be viewed as follows:a.Husband £709,000 own costs£360,000 to W’s costs during proceedings