In Pringle v Nervo [2026] EWCA Civ 266, the mother, Liv Nervo, an international DJ, was in a relationship with Matthew Pringle, head of Manuka Doctor and member of an ‘extremely wealthy family’ in New Zealand. While she was pregnant with their child (C), she discovered he already had a long-term partner and family. Lawyers were instructed over a three-year period but discussions became increasingly acrimonious and Nervo later applied for a fact-finding hearing, alleging ‘reproductive coercion and controlling behaviour including gas-lighting, love bombing, blame-shifting, future faking and financial abuse through excessive litigation’. The judge refused. Pringle later withdrew his application for parental responsibility and a child arrangement order, for reasons of poor mental health.

Usually the parties bear their own costs in these cases. However, the judge ordered Pringle to pay 75% of Nervo’s costs, on the basis of his conduct, including that he was motivated by a desire to protect his privacy and reputation, the lateness of his application to withdraw from proceedings, and failure to attend remote hearings.

However, Lady Justice King, delivering the main judgment last week, held the judge erred by considering only the father’s conduct rather than that of both parties, wrongly concluded a finding of unreasonable conduct was justified, and noted Pringle produced medical evidence for his failure to attend hearings.

King LJ said: ‘It is clear that the father's behaviour, quite understandably, remains a source of considerable bitterness and continuing distress to the mother.

‘An order for costs however relates only to the conduct of the parties in relation to the pre-proceedings and proceedings and not to the events, abusive or otherwise, which led to the conception of C.’