B v B (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant and the Respondent, formerly married parties, were involved in family law proceedings concerning financial matters, custody, and a request to take the children on holiday to a distant, non-European Union jurisdiction. The court initially issued a judgment on financial matters in December of the previous year, reducing the monthly spousal maintenance payable by the Respondent to the Applicant. Subsequently, in June, the court dealt with the custody issue and the holiday request. The Applicant had contended that the Respondent should pay her legal costs, while the Respondent argued that no order for costs should be made, or alternatively that any costs order should be in his favour. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate order as to costs following these proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether an order for costs should be made in these family law proceedings.
2. If costs are to be awarded, which party should bear the costs.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant contended that the Respondent should pay her legal costs incurred in the proceedings.
• She initially opposed the need for a s.47 report but later agreed to its preparation.
• She was disappointed with the reduction in maintenance ordered by the court.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent argued that there should be no order as to costs.
• He contended that if costs were to be awarded, they should be awarded in his favour.
• His counsel indicated he did not seek costs but accepted that if costs were awarded in family law, they could only be awarded to him.
• He maintained that the typical family law approach where each side bears their own costs was appropriate here.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized that while costs typically follow the event in litigation, family law proceedings do not fit the traditional win/lose paradigm. The court emphasized that family law matters involve serious efforts to resolve complex issues, often with no party truly "winning." The Respondent succeeded in significantly reducing his maintenance obligations, which was his principal concern, while the Applicant experienced some disappointment. The court accepted the Respondent's submission that if costs were to be awarded in family law, they would only be awarded to him. However, the court found no reason, based on the conduct of the parties or the nature of the proceedings, to depart from the usual family law practice where each party bears their own costs. Sympathy for the Applicant’s financial difficulties did not provide a legal basis to order the Respondent to pay her costs. The court therefore concluded that making no order as to costs was appropriate and consistent with the principles underlying family law cost awards.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was to make NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.

This decision means that each party will bear their own legal costs arising from these family law proceedings. The ruling does not establish new precedent but reflects the court's application of established family law principles regarding costs, emphasizing the non-adversarial nature of family law disputes and the court's discretion to depart from the usual "costs follow the event" rule in this context.