Costs case demonstrates why you should behave reasonably when sorting out finances on divorce
Feelings can obviously run extremely high when couples are involved in sorting out financial arrangements on separation and divorce.
And this can lead to some parties conducting themselves in unreasonable ways, in an attempt to gain the upper hand.
But the court expects the parties to conduct themselves in a reasonable manner, both in and out of court, as a recent case demonstrated.
The case concerned a wife’s application for interim maintenance, also known as ‘maintenance pending suit’. The application was prompted by the husband unilaterally emptying the joint bank accounts, and transferring some £140,000 into accounts in his sole name.
The husband also informed the wife that henceforth he would have his income paid into his own account, from which he would pay the £7,700 per month rent and outgoings on the house in which the wife and children were living, plus £1,000 per month maintenance for the wife, topping up the £2,500 per month she was receiving in rent from oversea properties that the parties owned.
The wife responded by applying to the court for: maintenance of £3,587.50 per month, the cost of a summer holiday in the sum of £22,150, and additional maintenance of £7,700 per month, so that she could have the security of paying the rent and outgoings on her home herself, without fear of the husband cancelling it, or threatening to cancel it, in future.
When the wife’s application was heard there were two issues: the holiday fund and the extra £7,700 maintenance. The court found in the husband’s favour in relation to the holiday fund, finding that there should be no such payment, and in the wife’s favour in relation to the extra £7,700 maintenance, as the wife’s fears regarding the husband stopping the payment were found to be not without foundation.
Both parties thought that they had ‘won’, and therefore asked the court to order the other party to pay their costs of the application.
But the court was not prepared to make any costs order. Both parties bore some responsibility for the costs that had been incurred: the husband for his ‘objectionable’ behaviour in emptying the joint accounts and trying to control the finances, thereby bringing the application upon himself, and the wife by unreasonably claiming a holiday fund, which he found the parties clearly could not afford.
In short, the judge could not find either party significantly more culpable than the other, such that it would be just to impose a costs order one way or the other.
You can read the full costs judgment here.
* * *
Family Law Cafe gives you the best strategy to achieve the right outcome for you and your family and keeps them informed and in control 24/7 through a unique and secure online portal. Family Law Cafe is your start-point for getting matters sorted with strategy, support and security.
Image: pathdoc / Shutterstock.com
