LI v FT (Maintenance Pending Suit: Costs)

LI v FT (Maintenance Pending Suit: Costs)

Both parties bear responsibility for the contested hearing, both failed to make reasonable concessions, and both succeeded and failed in part. It would not be just to impose a costs order one way rather than the other; each party should pay their own costs.

Parties
Applicant: LI; Respondent: FT
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Law Maintenance Pending Suit / Costs Ruling After Interim Maintenance Hearing
Outcome
Each party to pay their own costs.
Legal Topics
Maintenance Pending Suit, Costs Orders, Financial Remedy Proceedings
Family Law Maintenance Pending Suit Costs Orders Financial Remedy Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LI

Applicant

FT

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Maintenance Pending Suit / Costs Ruling After Interim Maintenance Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a costs order should be made following an application for maintenance pending suit
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the parties justifies a costs order against either party

Ratio Decidendi

Both parties bear responsibility for the contested hearing, both failed to make reasonable concessions, and both succeeded and failed in part. It would not be just to impose a costs order one way rather than the other; each party should pay their own costs.

Court Disposition

Each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • Each party shall bear their own costs of the application.