Bloomsbury Family Law Briefing: July Teaser

Case Summaries 

A v B (Port Alert) [2021] EWHC 1716 (Fam) (25 June 2021), Mostyn J – Application in wardship not appropriate for port alert: F could/should have applied in the Family Court in existing Children Act 1989 proceedings. Comment – A standard order port alert application is attached to the judgment.

ND v GD (Financial Remedies) [2021] EWFC 53 (14 June 2021), Peel J (and see Finance below). The judge said he would make no order for costs, since he had covered W’s needs after payment of her costs. There were interim orders for costs which H must pay. But, ‘[81] Contrary to the clear requirements of Rule 9.27A and PD28 paragraph 4.4 H, in my judgment, has not negotiated openly in a reasonable manner…’

Axnoller Events Ltd v Brake & Anor [2021] EWHC 1706 (Ch) (23 June 2021), HHJ Paul Matthews as High Court judge – Should the court vary an earlier order (CPR 1998, r 3.1(7) (FPR 2010 parallel: r 4.1(6)) about whether litigants in person should have a paper bundle provided to them by another represented parties lawyers. No paper bundle.

Meng v HSBC Bank plc [2021] EWHC 342 (QB), [2021] 2 WLR 1153 (19 Feb 2021), Fordham J – Bankers Book Evidence Act 1879, s 7 only available for accounts in United Kingdom, ie not for accounts outside the jurisdiction.

Abbasi & Anor v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWHC 1699 (Admin) (23 June 2021), Sir Andrew McFarlane P – The court has inherent jurisdiction to maintain a Reporting Restriction Order which prohibits the naming of any clinicians being involved for a child in ‘end of life’ proceedings, and here anonymity should be maintained.

Wasted costs order applications

Compensation to litigants

The wasted costs jurisdiction of the courts – civil and criminal (a substantial proportion arises from criminal proceedings) – exists not to punish lawyers but to compensate litigants who may have lost costs from the behaviour of lawyers for another party. With examples this article considers the jurisdiction and looks closely at the procedure by which it is invoked which is more opaque than it need be. Judge-made law has gone a long way to develop procedure but gaps remain: who, and precisely how, application to ‘show cause’ is to be made; and why compensation should not result where a wasted costs order is made is not explained?

The Family Law Briefing is part of the Bloomsbury Law Online Service. The full briefing is available here.

David Burrows

Written by David Burrows

Subscribe to the Bloomsbury Professional Law Newsletter

Law Online

Bloomsburyprofessionallaw Online research for solicitors and barristers practising in English law Free Trial

Need Help?

Bloomsburyprofessionallaw If you need any help with finding publications or just ask a question. Talk to an Advisor: 01444 416119
customerservices@bloomsburyprofessional.com
or send us a message