Continue reading "Conduct: The blame game"
This post is only available to members.
Conduct: The blame game
Rachel Wilmott highlights the courts’ approach when dealing with financial conduct and litigation conduct ‘There is no formulaic or accurate weighing mechanism for determining how the respective misconduct of the parties should be reflected in any order for costs.’ The decision in US v SR [2014] addresses at length the law on notional reattribution and …
Cases Referenced
Cases in bold have further reading - click to view related articles.
- M v M (Financial provision: party incurring excessive costs) [1995] 3 FCR 321
- NG v SG (Appeal: Non-Disclosure) [2011] EWHC 3270 (Fam)
- OS v DS (Oral Disclosure: Preliminary Hearing) [2004] EWHC 2376 (Fam)
- Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] WTLR 1249 SC
- US v SR [2014] EWHC 175 (Fam); [2014] EWHC 2864 (Fam)
- Young v Young [2013] EWHC 3637 (Fam)