Case No. BV20D00292

; “if, once the financial landscape is clear, you do not openly negotiate reasonably, then you will likely suffer a penalty in costs”.9.I propose to look at all the relevant factors in the round. I ignore the non-compliance with practice guidance about which I made critical comments but which do not (in this case) justify a costs penalty against either party, although it impeded the efficient conduct of the trial.10.Neither party behaved flexibly in their open negotiations. H did not move from a position which sought to implement the terms of the unsigned Post Marital Agreement. W consistently sought £10m or more and, far from moderating her position, increased her claims; by the time of trial her open position was for not less than £10.6m However, the fact is that H’s open offers have been far closer to my eventual award than those of W. His first open offer exceeded, in net effect terms, the decision which I arrived at. By the time of final hearing the net effect of his proposal was less (because of the incidence of costs and interim expenditure), amounting to £7.15m, approximately £300,000 less than my award. W fell well short of her ambitious claims, by some £3 million. I am not persuaded that I should notionally add to my award of £7.45m the sums paid by H under maintenance pending suit orders, and other incidentals, which W invites me to do so as to assert that the total sums received by her exceed £8m (which is still about £2.5m less than the award). To do so might suggest that it is in the payee’s interests to attempt to secure interim maintenance during proceedings (by voluntary payments or court order) so as to assist in later costs arguments by totting up everything spent on him/her during the proceedings.11.I accept that aspects of H’s litigation conduct were less than satisfactory. On balance, W was largely successful in her maintenance pending suit application (for which costs were reserved), and H was unsuccessful at a case management hearing in seeking to persuade me to direct a redaction of any references to the fact and timing of without prejudice negotiations (it having been agreed that the content should not be revealed to the court). I also take the view that H approached the Post Marital Agreement on the basis that it was decisive and should not under any circumstances be departed from, even though W had not signed it. That was the gravamen of his open offers. It was explicitly stated in his Form E that there should be an abbreviated