A family court judge has ordered a mother who wrongly accused her child’s father of sexual abuse to pay £27,100 of his legal costs - after ruling that the almost £260,000 sought by the father was 'disproportionate'.

In FAZ v MAZ & Anor (Costs) Mr Justice Poole ordered the payment of 25% of the man’s legal fees by his former partner, having recalculated the costs associated. He said the instruction of a leading and junior counsel in a previous fact-finding hearing regarding allegations of sexual abuse resulted in 'disproportionate expense'. 

Criticising the instruction of a senior counsel, Poole said 'this was a case suitable for an experienced junior counsel' acting alone, as there were only three allegations for determination. The first allegation, that the man entered his daughter's bedroom and sniffed her underwear was withdrawn at the outset of the fact-finding hearing, and the mother later informed the court she no longer believed the man had sexually abused their daughter.

The judge found that none of the allegations was proven, with reasonable explanations in each case.

During proceedings, the applicant father was referred to as FAZ, the mother respondent as MAZ, and their daughter as AZ. The couple were married in 2008, separated in 2015, and their daughter is now 14. Following abuse allegations made against FAZ by AZ in 2023, all contact between them was stopped.

In 2024, FAZ applied to vary the child arrangements order to reinstate contact. MAZ then applied to vary the order to extinguish all contact and for a s91(14) order restricting the father from making further applications while their daughter was still a child. After the fact-finding hearing, MAZ contested FAZ’s application for her to cover his legal fees of £256,667.80.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Poole said that MAZ 'genuinely believed that FAZ had abused their daughter' but said, 'her anxieties and distrust of FAZ resulted in her adopting a perspective on past events involving FAZ which are untethered from reality'. In her desperation to prove the case 'she was sometimes dishonest' resulting in 'inconsistencies, embellishments and insinuations'.

Poole described the father as having been 'sorely wronged'. However, he dismissed the £256,667.80 sought in costs, calculating that costs of £108,439 would be more reasonable. The wife should pay 25% of this 'more proportionate' sum.

In a judgment handed down remotely, Poole stated: 'The hourly rates claimed by the solicitors are reasonable and only grade B and C fee-earners have been deployed. Their rates are £260 and £230 per hour respectively. Those rates are reasonable and proportionate to the case. The hours spent attending FAZ include about 22 hours on correspondence and there is a similar number of hours (21.2 hrs) for letters and emails to opponents. Work on documents is claimed at just over £23,000 and attendances at hearings at approximately £15,000. 

'I have to take a broad-brush approach on a summary assessment. Some of the hours spent concerned matters other than the allegations of sexual abuse. Having regard to the issues in the case and the issues to which my costs order relates, I find the sums claimed to be disproportionate. For the reasons given below I also reduce the costs to reflect what I find is an unnecessary and disproportionate instruction of leading counsel alongside experienced junior counsel. Overall, my assessment is that the reasonable and proportionate solicitors’ costs attributable to the sexual abuse allegations amount to no more than £40,000 net of VAT and court fees.'

 

Janet Bazley KC and Lucy Sprinz of Blandy and Blandy LLP appeared for the applicant, while Martha Holmes on Direct Access represented the respondent.