A family judge has said that a couple running up costs of £13,000 over a dispute worth £2,000 at most is damaging to the reputation of lawyers.
Deputy District Judge Hodson dismissed an application from the wife in DSD v MJW for an interim £500 a month from her husband, ahead of a final financial remedy hearing in July.
The wife, represented by Scott Bailey LLP, incurred costs of £8,716 on making the application while the husband incurred £4,170 responding.
The judge said he had no hesitation in dismissing the application and stressed that the family court ‘will not entertain such cost disproportionate applications and thoroughly criticised this approach’. He added: ‘It has done only ill for the reputation of the family courts and family lawyers.’
Hodson, sitting at Plymouth Family Court, began his ruling by referring to the long-held reputation of lawyers racking up excessive costs. Hesaid there remain ‘countless reported decisions’ where large sums are incurred unnecessarily and lamented that the legal profession has yet to undergo the wholesale cultural change that is needed.
The judge made clear that with the pending final hearing, the total value of the interim payments was a maximum of £2,000.
Lawyers for the wife submitted that she could lose her accommodation without the payments, but the judge said the word ‘could’ flagged up that this application was on ‘shaky territory’. In any case, the courts would be able to make an urgent order before a final hearing if there was a real chance of her losing her home.
The court heard that the wife’s costs were being met by her parents. By December, she had already incurred £43,000 in costs and expected another £22,000 to the end of trial. ‘I suspect her parents are appalled, or at least should be, because apparently it is their money,’ said the judge. ‘I have no idea if either or both have spent any time in commerce. But only rarely and exceptionally does one spend almost £9,000 to recover what might be at best £2,000 if the order were backdated.’
Hodson said the lawyers and parties involved should have found creative solutions to get the outcome they requested. This could have involved an agreed deduction from the £700,000 sitting on account from the sale of a property. The wife, it was suggested, could have applied for an interim payment at an earlier hearing.
The judge said it may have been possible the application was a tactical one to get a better settlement from the final hearing, but he emphasised this tactic ‘falls flat’. In practice, all the application had achieved was to divert attention away from preparing for the final hearing and adding ill feeling and animosity in the case.
