Case No. FA-2022-000035

27.In her well-constructed submissions for the Local Authority, Ms Duxbury, who did not appear below, put forward six grounds of appeal. In short, they were that the judge:i)Wrongly based his evaluation of the Local Authority’s conduct on a mistaken recollection that at the hearing on 12 August 2021 they had impressed upon him that public law proceedings were “highly likely” to follow.ii)Failed to consider any evidence in relation to a factual dispute as to the circumstances of the children becoming cared for by the Applicants and yet took those circumstances into account when assessing the Local Authority’s conduct.iii)Wrongly concluded that the conduct of the Local Authority justified the making of the costs order in the absence of any evidence that they had acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently.iv)Failed to consider why it was just in all the circumstances to make the costs order.v)Wrongly made a costs order (past and future) without information as to the extent of the costs involved.vi)Wrongly used the costs order to ensure that the parties’ litigation was funded “through the back door”.28.The Applicants acted in person in the appeal. They provided the court with a well written response supporting the costs order under appeal. They submitted that the Local Authority’s conduct had been reprehensible in bringing about the removal of the children from M to them and then in not issuing public law proceedings. They had been advised by a social worker to collect the children from their schools on 28th May 2021 and take them to their home and had later been advised by a social worker to issue private law proceedings. They had then effectively been left bearing the costs of looking after the children, including moving to a larger home, and of contested private law proceedings. They told the court that the costs of the “complex and lengthy private law proceedings” were “exceptionally very high.” The outcome was financially damaging to them and therefore detrimental to the children they were caring for. It had been brought about by pressure from the Local Authority which constituted unreasonable conduct of the kind that the courts had recognised could justify a costs order in proceedings concerning the welfare of children. 29.For the Children’s Guardian, Mr Martignetti, who again did not appear in the court below, did not dispute that the Children’s Guardian had supported the application for a non-party costs order at the December hearing before the judge. However, on appeal, the Children’s Guardian adopted a neutral position.