M v M

M v M

W's application for transfer of H's company was wholly misconceived, based on misinterpretation by her advisors, and caused unnecessary costs and disruption. Her litigation conduct, including late and changing applications, justified an issue-based costs order. The court ordered W to pay a stated amount representing 20% of H's untaxed costs, reflecting the impact of her conduct while acknowledging the complexity and inevitability of substantial costs.

Parties
Applicant: M; Respondent: M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief Proceedings (financial Provision Following Divorce) / Post Trial Costs Determination
Outcome
Issue-based costs order granted against W (Respondent)
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Costs Orders, Issue Based Costs, Litigation Conduct
Family Law Civil Procedure 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Applicant

M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief Proceedings (financial Provision Following Divorce) / Post Trial Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of the wife (W) in pursuing the transfer of husband's (H) company and late application for periodical payments justifies an issue-based costs order against her
  2. 2 Whether W's litigation conduct warrants departure from the general rule that costs lie where they fall in ancillary relief proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

W's application for transfer of H's company was wholly misconceived, based on misinterpretation by her advisors, and caused unnecessary costs and disruption. Her litigation conduct, including late and changing applications, justified an issue-based costs order. The court ordered W to pay a stated amount representing 20% of H's untaxed costs, reflecting the impact of her conduct while acknowledging the complexity and inevitability of substantial costs.

Court Disposition

Issue-based costs order granted against W (Respondent)

Orders

  • W to pay H costs of £175,000, representing approximately 20% of H's untaxed costs, pursuant to CPR rule 44.3(7) and 44.3(6)(b)