header-logo header-logo

Taking orders

05 September 2013 / Claire Sanders
Issue: 7574 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Is it appropriate to make an order for costs against a non-party to family proceedings, asks Claire Sanders

Since 1 April 2013, when legal aid became unavailable for private children cases (unless they fall within the domestic violence exception) the issue of costs has become all the more relevant to parties who are now struggling to fund proceedings themselves. In HP v PB,OP and the London Borough of Croydon [2013] EWHC 1956 (Fam) [2013] All ER (D) 138 (Jul) the High Court had to decide whether it was appropriate to make an order for costs against a non-party to the proceedings, in that case a local authority, whose role in the proceedings had been limited to the production of a report.

Facts

The parents of a six-year-old child made cross applications under the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), s 8. During the course of the proceedings the father made allegations that the mother had fabricated illnesses in respect of herself and the child. The district judge directed the local authority, to prepare and file a

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll