DDJ David Hodson* had his say in a recent matter involving an application for interim maintenance and his comments (including a link to his referenced article) are included verbatim.
Neutral citation number: [2025] EWFC 119 (B) Case number: 1706523844619870
IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT PLYMOUTH FINANCIAL REMEDIES COURT
B E T W E E N
DSD v MJW (Costs of mps)
Heard on 17 April 2025 Reserved written judgement handed down on 24 April 2025
Overview: The judgment addresses an application for interim maintenance, highlighting issues of cost disproportionality and the appropriateness of the request.
Judgment Context
- The judgment was delivered in private, with anonymity for the parties involved.
- The case was heard remotely in the Family Court in Plymouth.
- The application was for maintenance pending suit of £500 per month, opposed by the husband.
Cost Disproportionality
Throughout history, lawyers have had a bad reputation. Amongst the wide category of complaints might be nuances, fine points taken which lawyers call distinguishing but the public calls something completely different, long delays which rarely suit anyone but lawyers and high costs including disproportionate costs.
It might be thought that in recent years, with far greater opportunity for bringing bad practices to light and far greater consumer awareness, there would have been wholesale changes. The profession now is very different to when I started decades ago and rightly so. We have far tighter professional rules, far more openness and transparency and far more information about costs. So why is it still in England and Wales family law, with which we are concerned, we have a continued saga of cases with disproportionate costs and applications which sadly do little to correct the reputation of these millennia? Countless reported decisions have condemned costs being incurred unnecessarily or inappropriately.
Modestly, I wrote on this subject in August 2022, including a list of the then leading cases:
I would like to report that the profession read the article and there was a wholesale cultural change. Alas not.The excessive costs cases have continued to be reported including this year. As also a solicitor, I naturally appreciate the fine line which sometimes arises on taking a particular course of interim action, balancing benefits against cost, looking at the wider picture and impact on the final settlement. It’s not easy in contrast to looking in the rearview mirror with the benefit of hindsight. I hope I have brought that perspective to bear in this judgement. But it will be obvious now where my thinking was as I read the papers in advance of the hearing, heard the very helpful submissions by counsel for each party and have reflected before writing this judgement.
- The wife incurred costs of £8,716, while the husband incurred costs of £4,170, totalling approximately £13,000 for a potential recovery of £1,500 to £2,000.
- The judgment criticises the excessive costs incurred relative to the amount sought.
- The judge emphasises the need for proportionality in legal costs, especially in family law cases.
Application Assessment
- The judge found no immediate risk of the wife losing her accommodation, undermining the urgency of the application.
- The judge noted that the application was made too late in the proceedings, with a final hearing scheduled for July 2025.
- The judge expressed concern over the lack of financial sense in pursuing the application given the costs involved.
Conclusion
- The application for interim maintenance was dismissed due to its late timing and cost disproportionality.
- The judge criticised the approach taken by the parties and their lawyers, suggesting that earlier applications would have been more appropriate.
- The judge is open to considering costs on paper to avoid further hearings, indicating a willingness to address the financial implications of the application.
*Prof David Hodson OBE KC(Hons) MCIArb is a dual qualified English and Australian (NSW) solicitor, a mediator, an arbitrator and a deputy (part-time) family court judge (DDJ) at the Central Family Court in London and recently also on the Western Circuit.