A v A [2007] EWHC 1810 (Fam) (13 July 2007)

A v A [2007] EWHC 1810 (Fam) (13 July 2007)

The wife is ordered to pay the husband's costs from 22 July 2005 to 4 April 2007 and 75% of his costs of the argument about costs, and to pay the trustees' costs from 17 December 2005 to 4 April 2007 and 50% of their costs of the argument about costs, all on the standard basis. This is because the wife pursued hopeless claims, especially the sham trust allegation, rejected generous settlement offers, and her conduct was the primary cause of the excessive costs. The husband's and trustees' Calderbank offers were effective, and the protective costs order for the trustees was only lifted prospectively. The court declined to ameliorate the costs order due to the wife's means, as she brought...

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1810 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant (wife): A; Respondent (husband): A; Interveners (trustees): St George Trustees Limited and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief (financial Remedy) Proceedings in the Family Division / Judgment on Costs Following Final Judgment
Outcome
Costs judgment: wife to pay substantial costs to husband and trustees; previous interim costs orders undisturbed; otherwise, no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Costs Orders, Trusts as Sham, Disclosure Obligations, Calderbank Offers, Joinder of Third Parties, Freezing Orders
Family Law Trusts and Equity Civil Procedure Ancillary Relief Costs Orders Trusts as Sham Disclosure Obligations Calderbank Offers +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Applicant (wife)

A

Respondent (husband)

St George Trustees Limited and others

Interveners (trustees)

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief (financial Remedy) Proceedings in the Family Division / Judgment on Costs Following Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate order for costs between the parties in complex ancillary relief proceedings involving failed allegations of sham trusts and significant litigation misconduct?
  2. 2 Are the trustees entitled to costs against the wife despite a prior protective costs order?
  3. 3 Should the wife pay the husband's and trustees' costs given the outcome and conduct of the litigation?

Ratio Decidendi

The wife is ordered to pay the husband's costs from 22 July 2005 to 4 April 2007 and 75% of his costs of the argument about costs, and to pay the trustees' costs from 17 December 2005 to 4 April 2007 and 50% of their costs of the argument about costs, all on the standard basis. This is because the wife pursued hopeless claims, especially the sham trust allegation, rejected generous settlement offers, and her conduct was the primary cause of the excessive costs. The husband's and trustees' Calderbank offers were effective, and the protective costs order for the trustees was only lifted prospectively. The court declined to ameliorate the costs order due to the wife's means, as she brought...

Court Disposition

Costs judgment: wife to pay substantial costs to husband and trustees; previous interim costs orders undisturbed; otherwise, no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Wife to pay husband's costs from 22 July 2005 to 4 April 2007 and 75% of his costs of the argument about costs, on the standard basis.
  • Wife to pay trustees' costs from 17 December 2005 to 4 April 2007 and 50% of their costs of the argument about costs, on the standard basis.