Baker v Rowe

Baker v Rowe

The proceedings between the daughter and son-in-law, though conducted within ancillary relief proceedings, were not themselves ancillary relief proceedings for the purposes of the general rule against costs orders. Nor did the general civil rule that costs follow the event apply, as these were family proceedings. The district judge had a clean sheet and was entitled to order costs against the unsuccessful party, and did so properly. Permission to appeal to the circuit judge was not required, and the refusal of permission was a nullity. The appeal raised an important point of principle but fails on the merits.

Parties
Appellant: William Baker; Respondent: Pauline Jessie Rowe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (family Proceedings) / Second Appeal to Court of Appeal From County Court Order on Costs
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Costs Orders, Interveners in Family Proceedings, Appeals Procedure
Family Law Civil Procedure Ancillary Relief Costs Orders Interveners in Family Proceedings Appeals Procedure

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Baker

Appellant

Pauline Jessie Rowe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (family Proceedings) / Second Appeal to Court of Appeal From County Court Order on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal was required for the appellant's first appeal to the circuit judge in family proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the general rule against costs orders in ancillary relief proceedings applied to costs between interveners
  3. 3 Whether the general rule that costs follow the event applied to these proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings between the daughter and son-in-law, though conducted within ancillary relief proceedings, were not themselves ancillary relief proceedings for the purposes of the general rule against costs orders. Nor did the general civil rule that costs follow the event apply, as these were family proceedings. The district judge had a clean sheet and was entitled to order costs against the unsuccessful party, and did so properly. Permission to appeal to the circuit judge was not required, and the refusal of permission was a nullity. The appeal raised an important point of principle but fails on the merits.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed