header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 September 2013 / Claire Sanders
Issue: 7574 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Taking orders

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
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
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
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 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
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
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
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’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
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’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll