header-logo header-logo

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

Taking orders

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll