No: FD22F00062 - [2025] EWHC 1951 (Fam)

As set out in the above judgment, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hirachand, I did not take the potential costs liabilities of the parties within these proceedings into account when determining the relief that I should order. The consequence of this (as James Pickering KC recognised in Jassal v Shah at [35(6)]) is that the costs order will impact the financial outcome designed by my substantive order. However, this reflects the policy of the CPR 1998. My decision on costs was that, in the absence of any relevant offers, they should follow the event (subject to a moderate discount for some conduct related issues) and Susan is required to pay three quarters of David’s costs of the claim, such costs to be subject to a detailed assessment on the standard basis if not agreed.