C v S [2025] EWFC 254 (16 July 2025)

C v S [2025] EWFC 254 (16 July 2025)

The court found that the applicant's (mother's) conduct before and during the proceedings was unreasonable and reprehensible, including refusal to engage in ADR, procedural obstruction, failure to comply with court orders, and making unsubstantiated allegations. This conduct justified a departure from the general rule against costs orders in children proceedings. The court held that the respondent (father) was entitled to a costs order in principle, but the proportion should reflect the complexities of the applicant's psychological profile and the overall circumstances.

Citation
[2025] EWFC 254
Parties
Applicant: C; Respondent: S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Children Act 1989 Private Law Proceedings / Costs Judgment Following Final Hearing and Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Costs order against the applicant (mother) in favour of the respondent (father) in principle, with the proportion to be determined on detailed assessment.
Legal Topics
Costs in Children Act Proceedings, Unreasonable Litigation Conduct, Alternative Dispute Resolution (adr), Expert Evidence, Contact Arrangements, Section 91(14) Barring Orders
Family Law Costs in Children Act Proceedings Unreasonable Litigation Conduct Alternative Dispute Resolution (adr) Expert Evidence Contact Arrangements Section 91(14) Barring Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Applicant

S

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Children Act 1989 Private Law Proceedings / Costs Judgment Following Final Hearing and Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's conduct justifies a departure from the general rule on costs in children proceedings
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded against the applicant in principle and, if so, in what proportion

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's (mother's) conduct before and during the proceedings was unreasonable and reprehensible, including refusal to engage in ADR, procedural obstruction, failure to comply with court orders, and making unsubstantiated allegations. This conduct justified a departure from the general rule against costs orders in children proceedings. The court held that the respondent (father) was entitled to a costs order in principle, but the proportion should reflect the complexities of the applicant's psychological profile and the overall circumstances.

Court Disposition

Costs order against the applicant (mother) in favour of the respondent (father) in principle, with the proportion to be determined on detailed assessment.

Orders

  • Applicant to pay respondent's costs, subject to detailed assessment; proportion to reflect the court's findings on conduct and circumstances.