M v M [2009] EWHC 1941 (Fam) (29 July 2009)

M v M [2009] EWHC 1941 (Fam) (29 July 2009)

The wife's application for transfer of the husband's company was wholly misconceived, based on false premises and expert misinterpretation, and her late change to a claim for periodical payments caused significant unnecessary costs. Her litigation conduct justified a departure from the general rule on costs, warranting an issue-based costs order for a fixed sum representing 20% of the husband's costs.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1941 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant: M; Respondent: M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief (financial Provision Following Divorce) / Post Trial, Costs Directions
Outcome
Issue-based costs order granted against the wife.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Costs Orders, Issue Based Costs, Litigation Conduct

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Applicant

M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief (financial Provision Following Divorce) / Post Trial, Costs Directions

  1. 1 Whether the wife should be ordered to pay a proportion of the husband's costs due to her conduct in litigation, specifically her application for transfer of the husband's company and late application for periodical payments.

Ratio Decidendi

The wife's application for transfer of the husband's company was wholly misconceived, based on false premises and expert misinterpretation, and her late change to a claim for periodical payments caused significant unnecessary costs. Her litigation conduct justified a departure from the general rule on costs, warranting an issue-based costs order for a fixed sum representing 20% of the husband's costs.

Court Disposition

Issue-based costs order granted against the wife.

Orders

  • The wife is to pay the husband £175,000 towards his costs, representing approximately 20% of his untaxed costs.