The Court of Appeal has thrown out a father’s appeal against an order that he pay costs in a contact case.
In Re G, the father had already unsuccessfully appealed against a ruling that he could not have direct contact with his two children, who were aged eight and six. The ruling had also included a ‘barring order’ under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989. This prohibited him from making applications regarding his children without prior court permission for a period of five years.
The father, an unrepresented litigant in person, was ordered to pay the mother’s costs. He was given permission to appeal the costs order.
At the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice McFarlane and Sir Stanley Burnton noted that the original judgement had contained a number of critical findings about the father, in particular that he had a made a number of groundless accusations against the mother.
They concluded that the father’s application had been filed primarily to harass the mother, even though his financial resources were limited. The original judge had been entitled to make the order that he pay costs and had protected him from an unnecessarily high bill by specifying a detailed assessment.
They dismissed the man’s appeal.