B v A

B v A

The court refused to make a costs order against the applicant father, finding that the failures in the presentation of his case reflected endemic shortcomings among family practitioners and judges, and did not amount to conduct that was reprehensible or beyond reasonable bounds. However, the court found the applicant's solicitors negligent in failing to comply with established principles and procedures for without notice applications, particularly in the continuation of the location order on 12 December 2011, and made a wasted costs order against them.

Parties
Applicant: B; Respondent: A
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Family Division Child Abduction / Judgment on Costs and Wasted Costs Applications
Outcome
Costs application against applicant father refused; wasted costs order granted against applicant's solicitors.
Legal Topics
Hague Convention, Without Notice Applications, Tipstaff Orders, Jurisdiction, Costs, Wasted Costs Orders
Family Law Child Abduction Civil Procedure Hague Convention Without Notice Applications Tipstaff Orders Jurisdiction Costs +1 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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B

Applicant

A

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Division Child Abduction / Judgment on Costs and Wasted Costs Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded against the applicant father in a Hague Convention child abduction case
  2. 2 Whether a wasted costs order should be made against the applicant's solicitors for failures in without notice applications
  3. 3 Compliance with principles and procedures for without notice applications

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to make a costs order against the applicant father, finding that the failures in the presentation of his case reflected endemic shortcomings among family practitioners and judges, and did not amount to conduct that was reprehensible or beyond reasonable bounds. However, the court found the applicant's solicitors negligent in failing to comply with established principles and procedures for without notice applications, particularly in the continuation of the location order on 12 December 2011, and made a wasted costs order against them.

Court Disposition

Costs application against applicant father refused; wasted costs order granted against applicant's solicitors.

Orders

  • Wasted costs order against applicant's solicitors in the sum of £18,000 (including VAT) up to 10 September 2012.
  • Further costs after 10 September 2012 to be determined upon handing down judgment.