M v M (Financial provision: party incurring excessive costs) [1995] 3 FCR 321

Conduct: The blame game

Natasha Kurth suggests that arguments as to conduct should be rare in financial proceedings, and approached with caution ‘In R v B each party accepted that the conduct allegations raised could amount to conduct that it would be inequitable to disregard, but denied that the factual position justified such a finding in this case.’ The …

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 …

Continue reading "Conduct: The blame game"

This post is only available to members.