RC v FP (No. 2: Costs)

RC v FP (No. 2: Costs)

The Respondent's (F's) conduct before and during the proceedings, including using litigation in part to protect his privacy, requiring confidentiality as a precondition for financial support, making late applications, failing to attend hearings without sufficient justification, and delaying withdrawal of applications, amounted to unreasonable conduct justifying a departure from the general rule of no order as to costs. However, the conduct did not reach the threshold for indemnity costs. The Applicant (M) is entitled to 75% of her costs, to be assessed on the standard basis, with a payment on account ordered.

Parties
Applicant: RC; Respondent: FP; Intervener (media): BBC; Intervener (media): Ms. Lucia Osborne-Crowley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Private Law Children Proceedings (costs Application) / Post Withdrawal of Substantive Applications; Determination of Costs
Outcome
Costs order in favour of the Applicant (M) against the Respondent (F) for 75% of her costs, assessed on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
Legal Topics
Costs in Children Proceedings, Parental Responsibility, Child Arrangements Orders, Domestic Abuse, Litigation Conduct
Family Law Civil Procedure Costs in Children Proceedings Parental Responsibility Child Arrangements Orders Domestic Abuse 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 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RC

Applicant

FP

Respondent

BBC

Intervener (media)

Ms. Lucia Osborne-Crowley

Intervener (media)

Procedural Posture

Private Law Children Proceedings (costs Application) / Post Withdrawal of Substantive Applications; Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent's (F's) conduct before and during proceedings justifies a departure from the general rule of no order as to costs in private law children cases; whether costs should be assessed on the standard or indemnity basis; quantum and assessment of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent's (F's) conduct before and during the proceedings, including using litigation in part to protect his privacy, requiring confidentiality as a precondition for financial support, making late applications, failing to attend hearings without sufficient justification, and delaying withdrawal of applications, amounted to unreasonable conduct justifying a departure from the general rule of no order as to costs. However, the conduct did not reach the threshold for indemnity costs. The Applicant (M) is entitled to 75% of her costs, to be assessed on the standard basis, with a payment on account ordered.

Court Disposition

Costs order in favour of the Applicant (M) against the Respondent (F) for 75% of her costs, assessed on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

Orders

  • Respondent (F) to pay 75% of Applicant's (M's) costs, subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis if not agreed.
  • Respondent (F) to make a payment on account of £192,793.50 within 14 days.