We also report on costs ordered over an intervenor’s unsuccessful application and a “culture of conflict” pushing up costs in a family case
Participants sought for Women in Costs mentoring programme
Women in Costs has launched its 2024/25 mentoring programme, looking for both mentors and mentees.
All mentees will be allocated a one-to-one mentor external to their firm, who will agree how often they will meet – weekly, fortnightly or monthly.
“Mentors can be great sounding board, offer experienced-based advice, and act as accountability partners,” the group said.
There will be a ‘making of most of mentoring’ coaching session next month, followed by soft-skills coaching sessions throughout the year. All coaching will be delivered by barrister-turned-coach Cath Brown.
The programme also includes two remote networking sessions plus an end-of-year mentoring social in July 2025.
For more detail, see Women in Costs’ LinkedIn post and to apply to be a mentor or mentee, click here. The closing date is 1 September.
Costs ordered over unsuccessful application to intervene in case
A man who unsuccessfully sought to be added as a third-party intervenor in a case, or alternatively added as a defendant, has been ordered to pay both sides’ costs of the application.
Stephen Hofmeyr KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, rejected George Vatistas’s contention that the costs should lie where they fall.
In Betta Oceanway Company v SC Tomini Trading SR (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 2068 (Comm), the judge said there was “no merit” in Mr Vatistas’s submission that the applications were caused by the claimant’s conduct. “Mr Vatistas chose to make the applications to further his own personal interests. He was not obliged to make the applications.”
Further, each of the claimant and the defendant “has for the most part acted reasonably and proportionately in relation to the applications”, and their attendance at the hearing was necessary.
“Mr Vatistas made the applications with his eyes open and it is reasonable to infer that he will have known the likely costs consequences in the event that the applications failed.” There was no reason to depart from the ordinary ‘loser pays’ rule, Judge Hofmeyr added.
On summary assessment, he reduced the £54,450 sought by the claimant to £40,000 – mainly because the rate sought was too high and too much work was done by a grade A fee-earner – while the £93,200 billed by the defendant was cut to £70,000, after finding the claim for attendances on the client and counsel’s fees too high.
“Culture of conflict” inflating costs, family judge warns
A High Court judge has hit out at the “culture of conflict” in a divorce dispute for leading to exceptionally high levels of costs.
Mrs Justice Theis’s decision in AZ v AG (Part III Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984) [2023] EWHC 2014 (Fam) is from last year but has only recently been published.
The hearing was the wife’s application for financial provision, which followed “extensive litigation regarding the children”.
She began the ruling with two general observations – one about “the lack of constructive engagement between the parties in these proceedings to assist the court to determine these issues”, and the other about “the very high level of legal costs, contributed to by the way this litigation has been approached”.
The judge said: “Between the parties they have spent £4m in this application and £4.4m in the children proceedings, a total of £8.4m. The culture of conflict rather than solution in these proceedings has been thoroughly unhelpful.
“It has resulted in the court having to intervene in situations where a solution was obvious or readily achievable, without needing recourse to the court. It is of note that it was only at the direction of the court was a total costs picture given, with both parties then expressing their concern and shock about their high level.
“A significant amount of valuable court time has been taken up with these proceedings which with a more constructive and less combative approach between the parties could have been avoided, making time for other cases to be heard. At every opportunity the court has impressed on the parties the need to change their approach, with little or no noticeable effect.”