header-logo header-logo

23 January 2015 / Laura Mortimer
Issue: 7637 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Calls for a costs revolution

mortimer

The family law profession faced judicial castigation in a recent case, as Laura Mortimer explains

Mostyn J’s recent judgment of J v J [2014] EWHC 3654 (Fam), [2014] All ER (D) 153 (Nov) seems expressly aimed to provoke discussion among the family law profession. His comments on the failures of the lawyers involved to follow the new rules on both the instruction of single joint experts (PD25D) and hearing bundles (PD27A) are a stand-alone matter worth serious consideration. However, the more controversial discussion about disproportionate legal costs and how solicitors charge for their services is the focus of this article.

For those who have not read the case, in essence £920,000 or 31.9% of the matrimonial assets (£2,885,000) were spent on legal costs and expert fees. Mostyn J’s outrage that a seemingly straightforward case incurred such breathtakingly high fees is patent. However, Mostyn J does not limit his concern to the parties involved in J v J itself, but to the family law profession as a whole. He declares [paras 11 & 13]:

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll