This is a Judgment given by Mr Justice Mostyn on the 16th April 2020, in relation to previous Costs Orders made in October 2019 and subsequent costs being incurred in Ancillary Relief proceedings.
In his Judgment, Mr Justice Mostyn stated that he had to revise his previous disposition made in his October 2019 Judgment. This was due to the husband misleading the Court in relation to his ‘unencumbered liquid funds,’ which had an effect on the Freezing Orders made. Mr Justice Mostyn clarified the discrepancies in the financial figures previously stated and the actual figures.
Mr Justice Mostyn then moved on to the Orders for Costs made in October 2019, which totalled £68,307.00, to include the wife’s and receiver’s costs. After the Judgment, negotiations had been entered into to agree the terms of the Orders made, however it was subsequently found that the previously stated figures were not correct. Further costs were therefore incurred by the wife and the receiver, in order to establish the true facts and incurred as a direct result of the husband’s previous misrepresentation of figures.
Mr Justice Mostyn therefore ordered that the husband pay the wife’s costs of £42,098 as per the October Order, that the husband pay the wife’s costs of £43,529 incurred since the October Order, that the husband pay the receiver’s costs of £26,499 which had been incurred and that the sum of £25,620 be set aside in respect of the future costs of the receiver. A Freezing Order in the amount of £200,000 was also made in anticipation of further misconduct by the husband. In making these Orders, Mr Justice Mostyn rejected the challenge to the quantum of costs and accepted that all the costs incurred were reasonably incurred given the complexity of the case.
The full judgement can be read here
If you have any questions regarding this summary case law please contact Claire Robson here