G (Children), Re

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a decision made by Judge Waddicor in the Brighton County Court on 18 October 2012 concerning contact arrangements under section 8 of the Children Act 1989. The father of two young children, referred to as C (aged 8) and L (aged 6), sought generous and open contact with the children. The mother opposed direct contact and sought an order prohibiting further applications under section 91(14) of the Children Act. After a three-day hearing, the judge ruled in the mother’s favor, refusing direct contact and imposing a five-year bar on further applications. Additionally, the judge ordered the father, who represented himself, to pay the mother’s costs following a detailed assessment. The mother was legally aided throughout the proceedings.

The father appealed the entire decision but permission to appeal was refused except on the issue of costs. The appeal on costs was heard by Sir Stanley Burnton and another judge. Both parties appeared in person, with the mother attending remotely.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the family court judge erred in ordering the father to pay the mother’s costs despite the general rule that costs do not usually follow the event in family proceedings.
2. Whether the judge properly exercised discretion in making a costs order against the father given his limited means and the absence of a costs schedule.
3. Whether the costs order should include a provision restricting enforcement without leave.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v R (Costs: Child Case) [1997] 2 FLR 95	Established that family courts have jurisdiction to order costs against a party acting unreasonably in child proceedings despite the general rule that costs do not follow the event.	The court relied on this precedent to confirm that the judge had jurisdiction to order costs against the father based on his unreasonable conduct.
Re F (Family Proceedings: Costs) [2008] EWCA Civ 938	Endorsed the principle that costs orders may be made where a party has acted unreasonably in family proceedings.	The court cited this case to support the exercise of discretion in ordering costs against the father.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized that family proceedings are generally exempt from the usual civil rule that costs follow the event. However, established case law permits costs orders where a party has acted unreasonably. The judge found the father’s conduct throughout the proceedings unreasonable, including making unfounded allegations against the mother, abusing court process, and using the litigation as a tool to harass the mother. The father’s initial application was unnecessary given an existing consent order and was motivated by personal grievances rather than the children’s interests.

Despite the father’s limited financial means, the judge was justified in exercising discretion to order costs, subject to a detailed assessment to determine reasonableness and enforceability. The court rejected the suggestion that the costs order should be restricted from enforcement without leave, noting that detailed assessment and enforcement are matters for subsequent proceedings. The appeal was limited to the costs order, and the court was bound by the original judge’s factual findings, including the father’s motivation and conduct.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the father's appeal against the costs order.

The costs order requiring the father to pay the mother’s costs was upheld as a proper exercise of the family court’s discretion in circumstances where the father acted unreasonably. The order is subject to detailed assessment before enforcement. The decision confirms that, although unusual, costs orders can be made in family proceedings when justified by conduct. No broader precedent beyond the application of existing principles was established.