H v Dent & Ors [2015] EWHC 2228 (Fam) (15 July 2015)

H v Dent & Ors [2015] EWHC 2228 (Fam) (15 July 2015)

The committal applications were fundamentally flawed, abusive, and had no real prospect of success. The applicant ignored open offers to settle and warnings about costs exposure. The Third Defendant incurred significant personal costs defending baseless allegations. Indemnity costs are justified due to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2228 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant: H; Respondent: Dent; Respondent: McKay; Respondent: Harman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Committal Application (satellite Litigation in Family Proceedings) / Costs Judgment Following Dismissal of Committal Applications
Outcome
Costs awarded against applicant in favour of Third Defendant (Ms Harman) on indemnity basis; quantum to be assessed if not agreed.
Legal Topics
Committal Applications, Costs, Abuse of Process, Children Act Proceedings
Family Law Civil Procedure Committal Applications Costs Abuse of Process Children Act Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H

Applicant

Dent

Respondent

McKay

Respondent

Harman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Committal Application (satellite Litigation in Family Proceedings) / Costs Judgment Following Dismissal of Committal Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded against the applicant following unsuccessful committal applications
  2. 2 Appropriate basis for assessment of costs (indemnity vs standard)
  3. 3 Whether conduct of applicant justifies indemnity costs

Ratio Decidendi

The committal applications were fundamentally flawed, abusive, and had no real prospect of success. The applicant ignored open offers to settle and warnings about costs exposure. The Third Defendant incurred significant personal costs defending baseless allegations. Indemnity costs are justified due to the applicant's unreasonable conduct and pursuit of hopeless claims.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded against applicant in favour of Third Defendant (Ms Harman) on indemnity basis; quantum to be assessed if not agreed.

Orders

  • Applicant to pay Third Defendant's costs on indemnity basis, amount to be assessed if not agreed.
  • No order for costs in favour of First and Second Defendants.