Call us: Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm, Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm
Call local rate 0330 056 3171
Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm | Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm
Call local rate 0330 056 3171
Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm | Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm

Father’s successful appeal against a ‘perverse’ costs order

Strange how things happen sometimes. I wrote here yesterday about the issue of costs orders made against parties in proceedings concerning arrangements for children, with particular reference to a costs order made against a father. By pure coincidence, a couple of hours after writing that post I came across a judgment from a case back in 2014, in which a father appealed against a costs order made against him in proceedings concerning arrangements for his son. As the appeal was successful, I thought it might provide some balance to my post yesterday.

The case was K (A child – Appeal against a costs order within private law proceedings) (you can probably guess why it caught my eye). It concerned a child born in 2006. His parents separated in 2008. He remained living with his mother, and having contact with his father. There were various issues between the parties, but the relevant proceedings arose after the mother moved with the boy from Milton Keynes to Kent in 2013, thereby disrupting the contact arrangements.

Both parents applied for residence orders and the court ordered a Cafcass report. The Cafcass officer recommended that the boy continue to live with his mother, and that the father should have contact on alternate weekends. The father, who was not represented, was not prepared to accept the recommendation and the matter therefore proceeded to a contested hearing before the magistrates’ court. At the end of the first day of the hearing the justices asked the father if he wished to continue with the case. He indicated that he did, and the hearing then proceeded to a second day. On the second day the magistrates handed down their decision, which was in line with the recommendations of the Cafcass officer.

At the end of the hearing the mother’s solicitor made an application for costs against the father. It was submitted that the amount of the costs came to £5,155.80. The magistrates made an order for costs against the father in that sum, essentially “because of Father’s tenacity in pursuing a case which had little merit and which he could have discontinued after seeing the CAFCASS report.” The father appealed against that decision.

The appeal was heard by Her Honour Judge Brown in the Milton Keynes County Court. As indicated, she allowed the appeal. There were a number of strands to her reasoning (and indeed to the mother’s arguments in favour of the costs order), but for the sake of brevity I will mention what I think is the most important point, relating to the father’s decision to proceed with the case, notwithstanding the recommendations of the Cafcass officer. Judge Brown quite rightly observed:

“In my judgment, if the courts were justified in making orders for costs against parents who continued with their litigation after receipt of the Cafcass reports, costs orders would be made in almost every Children Act case.”

She went on:

“My next concern is that the magistrates seem to have made the costs orders based on the father’s tenacity. In my judgment tenacity, if indeed that is what father has shown, is not in itself sufficient to make a costs order against Father. There was no criticism of this father in the reasons of the substantive application that would justify the making of a costs order and indeed the only comment made about father’s conduct was that he had acted “with the best of intentions.””

In other words, unlike in the case I referred to yesterday, the father had not conducted the case unreasonably, which is the primary reason why, exceptionally, a costs order may be made against a party in children proceedings. He had simply been tenacious, and he cannot be criticised for that.

For this and other reasons Judge Brown held that the costs award was wrong, if not perverse, given the finding that he had acted “with the best of intentions”. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the costs order was discharged. Judge Brown concluded with the following notable advice:

“In my judgment parties should be advised very clearly when they embark on seeking representation in private law proceedings is that it is unusual to recover costs in private law proceedings.”

The full report of the case can be found here.

Image by Howard Lake via Flickr

The blog team at Stowe is a group of writers based across our family law offices who share their advice on the wellbeing and emotional aspects of divorce or separation from personal experience. As well as pieces from our family law solicitors, guest contributors also regularly contribute to share their knowledge.

Contact us

As the UK's largest family law firm we understand that every case is personal.


  1. Andy says:

    In such cases as this the Golddiger mother has created parental alienation.
    I support the judges comments and for once it was about the child not the who can get one up again send the other.
    Also the incompetent CAFCASS report which clearly is unprofessional and not worth the time to read as a supposed proffesional…
    Things such as the report cause trouble for the father in his quest for equality for child care.

  2. JamesB says:

    I had one of these against me. Was well dodgy. Was for a days costs although in the order it said full costs. The judge just lost his temper and egged on by barrister and me not knowing what the problem was. Cost me one or two K. Ridiculous, I walked away and haven’t been back since which was probably the intention of the judge. Was a stitch up and less than carcass order. Still I suppose at least she stuck to her order for a while longer than if I gad ‘won’. Ridiculous thing is the judges tend to side with the Mum and professionals. As a Nrp father Lip against a barrister and a judge on an even slightly grey area you have no chance. Why did I do it? Because they took my children away from me for no good reason and the more they see of me the better they are and expect me to pay for it. Indeed I think I will now put in to enforce the order again, which she no longer sticks to anyway.

  3. JamesB says:

    I can see why people have lawyers. It’s hard being called names by everyone as an nrp dad in court. It’s institutional sexism. Indeed even when I had a lawyer you get called names by him in court also. It’s the whole woman good, man bad boring story over and over, tired and usually wrong. Let’s see some more stories of judges standing up to pwc women and enforcement of contact orders please, rather than costs against Dad’s orders please
    It would give me and others more faith in the system, wouldn’t be hard, and make us ridicule it less as it is open to being currently.

  4. Nick says:

    1)Took CSA to court and had a decision overturned in 2015.
    2) CMS came on the scene and rode roughshod over the above and took over £4000 out of my account via a LSDO after them going over the above for another 6 months( it is now 28/10/2020 and i am still fighting them via ICE.)
    They have admitted to faults but will not reverse their decision. I am now preparing for another hearing at the courts.
    3)Had to agree to a £150 compensation offer before they would reconsider the case, did this and they still would not overturn the original decision and this after providing them with all the evidence for the fourth time. What has come to light so far with case pending closure(This takes 53 weeks!!) is that i have overpaid by £1200 and this is from another financial year!!.
    All the above after i went to the CSA and gave them all my details to start the payments from day one, it took them 9 months to sort, blamed me and took out 9 months of back payments from one months salary.
    The process for the review of my case is done in real time so my ex is getting letters saying i will be paying a certain amount and i am getting letters with standing order forms enclosed!!
    I have had almost 14 years of stress which is still on going due to their incompetence. They are a joke and not fit for purpose. They are owed 3 billion from feckless parents that they cant retrieve and cost the taxpayer millions with their incompetence.

Leave a comment

Help & advice categories


Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up for advice on divorce and relationships from our lawyers, divorce coaches and relationship experts.

What type of information are you looking for?

Privacy Policy