The general rule in civil proceedings is that the \u2018loser\u2019 should pay the \u2018winner\u2019s\u2019 costs however in family proceedings, this rule does not usually apply, particularly in proceedings that involve children. However, in the recent case of S v S this position changed.<\/p>\n
The case of S v S involved an application made by a father for his two sons (aged 15 and 13) to live with him in Switzerland. The application was opposed by the mother with whom the boy had always lived.<\/p>\n
During the course of the proceedings, there was a report produced by an Independent Social Worker who advised that \u2018given the strength of the boys\u2019 feelings and wish to live with their father, I believe that there is no alternative to agree to his application\u2019. <\/em><\/p>\n The father\u2019s application was granted however due to the highly exceptional nature of these proceedings, a costs order was made against the father. Initially both parties applied for their costs however the father retracted his claim and invited the court to make \u2018no order for costs\u2019 whereas the mother continued to pursue her application.<\/p>\n The court held that although the father had \u2018won\u2019 his application, his behaviour was reprehensible in certain respects in a way which directly fed into the manner in which the proceedings arose, the way in which they were pursued and the fact that the matter had led to a final hearing. The parties\u2019 total costs came to \u00a3938,000 and the court ordered that the father pay \u00a3150,000 towards the mother\u2019s costs.<\/p>\n Costs orders in children proceedings are exceptional, however, this recent case is a reminder that it is possible to penalise unreasonable conduct within children proceedings with an order for costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The general rule in civil proceedings is that the \u2018loser\u2019 should pay the \u2018winner\u2019s\u2019 costs however in family proceedings, this rule does not usually apply, particularly in proceedings that involve children. However, in the recent case of S v S this position changed. The case of S v S involved an application made by a… Read More »Unreasonable conduct can cost you in children proceedings!<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[26,55,205,10,175],"tags":[27,179,61,35,34,206,9,19],"class_list":["post-627","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-child-benefits","category-child-law","category-children-proceedings","category-family-law","category-lund-bennett","tag-child-benefit-changes","tag-child-benefits","tag-child-law","tag-child-maintenance","tag-child-support","tag-children-proceedings","tag-lund-bennett","tag-lund-bennett-law"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t