Karima Gadekrab Elsayed Mahmoud v Daniel Glanville & Anor (No2) (Pro Bono Costs Order)

Karima Gadekrab Elsayed Mahmoud v Daniel Glanville & Anor (No2) (Pro Bono Costs Order)

The mother’s conduct throughout the litigation was egregiously unreasonable and reprehensible, directly causing elevated legal costs and necessitating pro bono representation. The court is satisfied that both a conventional costs order and a pro bono costs order are justified and proportionate, having regard to the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
First Respondent: Karima Gadekrab Elsayed Mahmoud; Applicant: Daniel Glanville; Second Respondent: Adam Glanville (By his Children’s Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Family / Costs Application Following Final Orders
Outcome
Costs orders granted against the mother in favour of the father and Access to Justice Foundation.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Pro Bono Costs, Parental Responsibility, Child Arrangements, Non Molestation Orders
Family Law Child Law Costs Orders Pro Bono Costs Parental Responsibility Child Arrangements Non Molestation Orders

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karima Gadekrab Elsayed Mahmoud

First Respondent

Daniel Glanville

Applicant

Adam Glanville (By his Children’s Guardian)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Costs Application Following Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs orders should be made against the mother in favour of the father in proceedings concerning a child
  2. 2 Whether a pro bono costs order should be made under s.194 Legal Services Act 2007

Ratio Decidendi

The mother’s conduct throughout the litigation was egregiously unreasonable and reprehensible, directly causing elevated legal costs and necessitating pro bono representation. The court is satisfied that both a conventional costs order and a pro bono costs order are justified and proportionate, having regard to the legislative intent of s.194 Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing costs in children proceedings.

Court Disposition

Costs orders granted against the mother in favour of the father and Access to Justice Foundation.

Orders

  • The First Respondent must pay costs of the Applicant summarily assessed at £95,000 by 31 October 2025.
  • The First Respondent must pay pro bono costs to the Access to Justice Foundation summarily assessed at £20,000 by 31 October 2025.