Q&As

When appealing a decision of a district judge at a financial remedy final hearing, what will be the court’s approach to costs? Do the Family Procedure Rules 2010 or the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 apply? If the appellant succeeds on some, but not all, of their grounds of appeal, how will the court determine the issue of costs?

read titleRead full title
Produced in partnership with Paul Infield of The 36 Group
Published on LexisPSL on 23/12/2019

The following Family Q&A produced in partnership with Paul Infield of The 36 Group provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • When appealing a decision of a district judge at a financial remedy final hearing, what will be the court’s approach to costs? Do the Family Procedure Rules 2010 or the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 apply? If the appellant succeeds on some, but not all, of their grounds of appeal, how will the court determine the issue of costs?

When appealing a decision of a district judge at a financial remedy final hearing, what will be the court’s approach to costs? Do the Family Procedure Rules 2010 or the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 apply? If the appellant succeeds on some, but not all, of their grounds of appeal, how will the court determine the issue of costs?

The Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, r 28.3(1) states that: ‘Rule 44.2(1), (4) and (5) of the CPR do not apply to financial remedy proceedings’. That is the foundation of the ‘no order for costs’ principle which generally applies in financial relief proceedings.

However, FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, r 28.3 does not apply to a financial remedy appeal (H v W (cap on wife's share of bonus payments) (No 2)). CPR 44.2, which gives the court a discretion as to costs, applies in such cases.

A number of factors apply to the exercise of that discretion under CPR 44.2, including the following:

  1. an unreasonable refusal to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution may amount to conduct which could result in an adverse order for costs

  2. Calderbank offers are admissible in the costs phase of such proceedings and may influence the outcome of the costs application—see: KS v ND (Schedule 1: Appeal: Costs)

  3. the application under CPR 44.3(5) of the proportionality principle in an assessment of standard costs

Related documents:

Popular documents