FA-2024-000131 - [2025] EWHC 2595 (Fam)

Fecha: 13-Oct-2025

Introduction

The respondent made an application for her costs of this appeal on an indemnity basis. I have already given judgment on the appeal which is reported as Re H (A Child) (Appeal: Child Maintenance) [2025] EWHC 2361 (Fam). The respondent had filed her N260 on 20 May 2025. The respondent’s costs of appeal were estimated by her as of 20 May 2025 as £8,749. The May hearing did not proceed for reasons I have already set out in my earlier judgment. The additional costs incurred by the hearing being adjourned caused the total amount claimed by the respondent to be put by her at £11,000. She tells me in her skeleton argument in support of her application for costs that she sought to reach an agreement with the appellant about costs on 11 September 2025 but, she says, the appellant did not reply.

The respondent has provided a detailed argument in support of her application for the costs of the appeal. Her argument can be summarised as follows:

The appeal was dismissed.

ii.

The respondent complies with orders whereas the appellant has a history of non-compliance and litigation conduct intended to thwart the respondent’s claim for family finance. She asserts that this amounts to litigation conduct and has been ongoing since 2011.

iii.

The appellant, she says, is aware of the financial and emotional impact on her and their child yet he has continued to delay proceedings which has only served to heighten the distress.

iv.

The appellant has used the appeal to avoid paying arrears of maintenance which had accrued prior to HHJ Oliver’s April 2024 order and continued to accrue under paragraphs of HHJ Oliver’s order which had not been stayed during the appeal process and upon which permission to appeal had been refused and certified as totally without merit.

She has made offers to settle the appeal which have been, she says, ignored or dismissed.

The appellant has filed a skeleton argument in which he argues that the appropriate order for costs would be no order between the parties. He submits that:

FPR 2010, r28.3 provides that the general rule is no order for costs except where a costs order is appropriate because of unreasonable litigation conduct

ii.

Costs should be proportionate and fair particularly in finely balanced cases or cases where the sums are modest. An order for costs against him would be disproportionate given the finances in this case are modest.

iii.

He denies any litigation conduct which would justify a costs order being made against him. The appeal though unsuccessful was pursued in good faith. His conduct cannot be regarded as vexatious or abusive.

However, if contrary to the above submissions I decide to make an order for costs in the Respondent’s favour, I am asked by the Appellant to summarily assess them and limit them to a cap of 50 hours at LIPs rates being a total of £950.

In readiness for the appeal hearing in May 2025, the Appellant filed a N260 in which he put his costs to 20 May 2025 at £4551.

Having read both arguments on the issue of costs, on 15 September 2025 I made the following directions:

1.The Appellant shall no later than 2pm on 23 September 2025 file and serve the following:

Any submissions he wishes to make in relation to he specific instances of litigation conduct raised by the respondent in her argument in support of her application for the costs of the appeal.

Any submissions he wishes to make in response to the respondent’s schedule of offers she has made to settle the appeal including the offer made on 11 September 2025 in relation to the costs of the appeal.

A copy of the authority relied upon – J V J (Costs of Financial Remedy Appeal) [2017] EWCA Civ 1159.

[…]

Costs reserved.

The appellant has filed a skeleton argument in which he makes further submissions, but he did not descend into detail to rebut the Respondent’s arguments concerning litigation conduct. In essence, his submissions can be summarised as (i) proportionality to conduct and (ii) proportionality to the amount of maintenance in dispute. The appellant argues that the respondent’s stance has been disproportionate, unreasonable, and designed to extract an unfair advantage. The respondent counters that she has had tried to be reasonable and proportionate in her approach to the litigation but that the appellant will not engage with her. She states that his litigation conduct has continued and that he has failed to respond to offers to settle the claim for costs. The respondent has sent to me via my clerk open offers to settle the issue of the costs of the appeal at £5300. The Appellant has simply responded to her offers sating that her offers are unreasonable, and he has no intention of communicating about unreasonable offers.