TY v XA (No 3)

TY v XA (No 3)

The husband's litigation conduct, including breaches of orders and failure to make reasonable settlement offers, justified a departure from the no order as to costs principle. However, the wife's costs were disproportionate and not all attributable to the husband's conduct. The court ordered the husband to pay 70% of the wife's costs on the standard basis, not indemnity, as his conduct was not sufficiently 'out of the norm.' No further lump sum was awarded; the costs order was deemed sufficient to meet the wife's needs without undermining the children's or her housing provision.

Parties
Applicant: TY; Respondent: XA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Family/financial Remedy / Post Judgment (costs and Consequential Orders)
Outcome
Costs order for the wife; no further lump sum; consequential directions given.
Legal Topics
Financial Remedies, Costs Orders, Enforcement of Foreign Agreements, Needs Based Awards, Children's Maintenance, Legal Services Orders
Family Law Financial Remedies Costs Orders Enforcement of Foreign Agreements Needs Based Awards Children's Maintenance Legal Services Orders

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TY

Applicant

XA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family/financial Remedy / Post Judgment (costs and Consequential Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the wife is entitled to a further lump sum or costs order to discharge her legal debts and outstanding liabilities
  2. 2 Whether the court should reconsider the substance of the orders made at the final hearing due to alleged changes in the husband's financial position
  3. 3 The appropriate treatment of the wife's costs in a needs-based financial remedy case

Ratio Decidendi

The husband's litigation conduct, including breaches of orders and failure to make reasonable settlement offers, justified a departure from the no order as to costs principle. However, the wife's costs were disproportionate and not all attributable to the husband's conduct. The court ordered the husband to pay 70% of the wife's costs on the standard basis, not indemnity, as his conduct was not sufficiently 'out of the norm.' No further lump sum was awarded; the costs order was deemed sufficient to meet the wife's needs without undermining the children's or her housing provision.

Court Disposition

Costs order for the wife; no further lump sum; consequential directions given.

Orders

  • Husband to pay wife £409,015.10 (the balance of 70% of her total costs, less sums already paid) by 30 November 2025.
  • Husband to pay capitalised maintenance and other sums by 31 May 2026, with interest thereafter.