31 Jan 2011
C v. H
- Citation
- C v. H
- Court
- Family Court
- Case number
- FCMC14600/2009
The court held that a departure from the usual no-order rule was justified because the husband's conduct in pursuing sole custody was unreasonable and effectively hopeless (late realistic offers, failure to engage with children or assessments, causing substantial unnecessary litigation), and because of a marked disparity in financial resources; accordingly the husband must pay the costs of the custody application, including previously reserved costs, with certificate for one counsel, to be taxed if not agreed and payable forthwith.