Costs
41.Finally, both parties’ costs schedules show that very significant sums have been spent on this litigation. Whilst many courts get very exercised about the figure spent on costs, there is an argument that the parties are entitled to spend their money on whatever they like. There is no doubt, however, that the costs in this case are eye watering by virtually any standard. It should not be this way. The Husband’s costs have been £2,957,239, of which he has paid £2,781,442. The Wife’s costs have been £900,000 less, namely £2,041,692. She has paid the entire bill and her solicitors hold a modest amount on account. I should note that the Husband spent £397,771 on the mistake/recission claim, whilst the Wife spent£179,022 on that aspect.
- MR JUSTICE MOOR:-
- The relevant history
- The litigation
- Valuation evidence
- Final open proposals
- The Assets Schedule
- Property Particulars
- Costs
- The respective Position Statements
- Duxbury
- Tinker v Tinker
- Lambert
- The Law I must apply
- White v White
- K v L
- Miller/McFarlane
- Hart v Hart
- Miller
- Jones v Jones
- Martin
- WM v HM
- my emphasis)
- Sharp v Sharp
- S v AG
- S v S
- Vaughan
- FB v PS
- The factual issues
- Sharp
- VV v VV
