Pringle v Nervo [2026] EWCA Civ 266 (13 March 2026)

Pringle v Nervo [2026] EWCA Civ 266 (13 March 2026)

The judge erred by failing to consider the conduct of both parties and by relying on low-level procedural conduct as justification for a costs order; the father's conduct did not meet the threshold of 'reprehensible or unreasonable' behaviour required for a costs order in children proceedings.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Civ 266
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Matthew James Pringle; Defendant/respondent: Olivia Margaret Nervo
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Family Court (private Law Children Act Proceedings) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; costs order set aside.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders in Children Proceedings, Conduct of Litigation, Transparency Orders, Declaration of Parentage, Parental Responsibility, Child Arrangements
Family Law Civil Procedure Costs Orders in Children Proceedings Conduct of Litigation Transparency Orders Declaration of Parentage Parental Responsibility Child Arrangements

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew James Pringle

Claimant/appellant

Olivia Margaret Nervo

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Family Court (private Law Children Act Proceedings) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in making a costs order against the father in private law children proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of both parties was properly considered in relation to costs
  3. 3 Whether the father's conduct amounted to 'reprehensible or unreasonable' behaviour justifying a costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred by failing to consider the conduct of both parties and by relying on low-level procedural conduct as justification for a costs order; the father's conduct did not meet the threshold of 'reprehensible or unreasonable' behaviour required for a costs order in children proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; costs order set aside.

Orders

  • No order for costs except for costs relating to the mother's preparation of the declaration of parentage application, to be assessed if not agreed.