In K -v- K  EWHC 2002 (Fam) Mr Justice Macdonald reduced the costs of a successful party to an appeal in a family case. “The stringent test of proportionality in relation to costs incur…
“The stringent test of proportionality in relation to costs incurred applies with equal force in family proceedings. It is remarkable that such a significant sum of money has been spent by these two parents arguing over a single question the answer to which was indisputable from the outset. The costs incurred in this case were disproportionate to the single issue at hand”
“That does not mean, however, that it is right for the mother to bear the frankly excessive costs enumerated in the Statement of Costs filed by the solicitors instructed by the father. In circumstances where the rules make provision for the payment of costs proportionately and reasonably incurred, where a costs order is merited the court will meet robustly any claim for costs that it considers to be, as in this case, excessive.”
Read full article at source: Proportionate costs in a family case: £33,813 reduced to £3,737.50
Did a judge say public money is being ‘squandered’ on lawyers?
Full Fact is the UK’s independent fact checking charity. It has looked at some of the press coverage relating to Sir James Mundy’s statements about use of public money:
‘Two recent articles interpret a memo by the most senior judge in the family courts as saying that too much is spent on lawyers in cases where children are taken into care.
Sir James Munby’s ‘View From the President’s Chambers’ bulletin does warn against the “squandering” of public money, and in the next breath mentions a plan to tinker with the system that gives children involved in care cases their own legal team’.
Visit Full Fact: here