[2025] EWHC 2395 (Fam)

On 8 May 2025, I handed down judgment with respect to applications concerning the welfare of Adam Glanville, born on 27 July 2017. Those applications comprised an application by Karima Mahmoud, the mother of Adam, for permission to apply for a child arrangements order, there being an order pursuant to s.91(14) of the Children Act 1989 in force in respect of the mother, and an application by Daniel Glanville, the father of Adam, to restrict the exercise of the mother’s parental responsibility. In addition, the mother sought the discharge of a non-molestation order made against her by this court in November 2024 and the return of her passports.

The issue now before the court is whether the court should make two costs orders in favour of the father. The first order concerns the costs paid by the father to his solicitors prior to them agreeing to act pro bono on his behalf. The N260 form dealing with those with costs with Teelan & Silwal LLP is before the court in the sum of £118,720.20. The form indicates that in addition to the pro bono work carried out by Teelan & Silwal, that firm has written off £19,212.50 against billed costs during the period 11 September 2023 to 19 February 2024, as a gesture of good will. The value of the pro bono work carried out by Teelan & Silwal, if it had been charged, is set out in a separate Form N260 in the sum of £29,478.00. Within this context, and in addition to the costs order sought by the father, the father seeks a pro bono costs order under s.194 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (hereafter “the 2007 Act”). Finally, the court has before it a third Form N260 dealing with costs of £ £20,497.60 that would have been incurred by the father with Moore Barlow, who stepped in when Teelan & Silwal were unable to continue to assist pro bono.

In considering the applications, I have had the benefit of written submissions prepared by the father on 23 May 2025, and by Teelan & Silwal LLP dated 8 April 2024, together with a draft order that provides for the mother to pay costs for pro bono representation to the Access to Justice Foundation summarily assessed or to be assessed on the standard/indemnity basis if not agreed. I have also had a response to the costs application from the mother by way of a further witness statement and a Skeleton Argument.