Proposed changes to costs orders in big-money divorce cases were met with conflicting opinions by specialists this week.

Sitting in the Court of Appeal, the President of the Family Division, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, endorsed a judgment by deputy High Court judge Nicholas Mostyn QC in another family case that there should be no costs orders in cases where both parties are left with enough money for their needs, subject to reasonableness.

Although Dame Elizabeth said Judge Mostyn was 'cavalier' in his approach, she agreed 'with the overall direction of his judgment for the future'.

Under the current rules, the judge does not discover the amount of any offer to settle made in divorce proceedings until the end, and if the judge's award beats the offer, then the majority of the legal costs are borne by the offeror.

This tends to be the husband.

Mark Harper, a partner at City firm Withers and a member of the Law Society's family law committee, said: 'It's disturbing that the president agrees that the system needs to be completely scrapped and no order made as to costs...

I'm not convinced that no order encourages sensible offers to be made.'

Mr Harper added: 'People need to have incentives to make sensible proposals and the fear of being ordered to pay costs is often the best incentive.'

He pointed out that he would argue in any forthcoming consultation on the matter strongly in favour of retaining elements of the current system.

However, Richard Sax, a partner at City firm Manches, said: 'In the big-money cases, it will bring us more into line with how things are done in the US and Europe, and I think it would be effective.'

Mr Sax said it would encourage people to settle because 'if you realise that unless you behave reasonably then you can be penalised - that is an incentive'.

A consultation paper on proposed changes is likely to be issued shortly, the lawyers said.

Jeremy Fleming