Family Law Hub

MS v FS (No.2: Costs and Ancillary Issues) [2020] EWFC B8

The husband had sought to set aside a decree absolute and a financial consent order in proceedings involving what was described as "frankly shambolic and unacceptable case preparation", leading to the loss of a full court day and the case being part-heard. The starting point as to costs was set out in FPR 2010 rule 28.1: the court may make any order as to costs "as it thinks just". As a set-aside application this was not within the definition of "financial remedy proceedings" and so rule 28.2 applied rather than rule 28.3. Mr Recorder Allen QC decided that the wife should pay 80% of the husband's costs, and costs were to be assessed on the indemnity basis. Her conduct in dishonestly obtaining a decree of divorce and a financial order had taken the circumstances of this case out of the norm.

Judgment, published: 19/03/2020


Published: 19/03/2020


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item