Costs
23.W asks for her costs of the proceedings which are just shy of £12,000. H’s response is that:i)It is not his fault that the litigation has become so tortuous and taken so long;ii)When he made his application he was still on the mortgage and it was only the events of the last two months which have made his application for a sale hopeless. W responds by saying that she has had the stress of facing up to a claim which in many respects was misguided.24.On 9 February 2023, one month before the hearing, W informed H that he had been removed from the mortgage and he was asked to withdraw his application. He declined. He should have accepted the suggestion and thus avoided the expense attached to this hearing.25.Since that time W has incurred £2,500 in respect of counsel and £2,500 in respect of solicitor costs, in each instance plus VAT. In principle there is no reason why H should not pay those costs as the loser. These are not proceedings to which the presumption of no order applies. 26.W asks in addition that she should have the costs of preparing bundles for earlier hearings and other preparatory steps taken in connection with them.27.I have decided to take a broad approach to this issue. I balance against each other the discount applied on a notional assessment of costs against the costs incurred prior to 9 February 2023. I bear all these factors in mind and the order that I make is that H should pay the sum of £4,500 plus VAT (total £5,400) towards W’s costs.