Balancing the Scales: Proportionality of Costs in the Family Court

In a legal landscape where emotions run high and finances often run low, the proportionality of costs in the Family Court has never been more vital – or more contested. Whether it’s a dispute about child arrangements or finances following separation, a key question must always be asked: Are my legal costs proportionate to the issues?

As the litigants, lawyers, and the Court all grapple with rising legal costs, proportionality isn’t just a procedural factor – it is a cornerstone of fairness, access to justice, and sustainability. It is essential that individuals weigh the estimated costs against the likely outcomes when making decisions about whether to pursue a matter through the Family Court.

The Court is not afraid to make its disapproval of excessive and disproportionate costs clear, whether in respect of a family with limited means or one of ultra-high net worth. This article explores examples of case law where the Court has examined or commented on the legal costs incurred. These cases involve factors that many clients will likely recognise in their own disputes.

M v H (Costs: Residence Proceedings) (2000)

In this case, a father brought an application for his children to live with him. The judge ordered that the father pay 75% of the mother’s legal fees, having found that the father did not genuinely believe in the allegations that formed the basis of his application, and ignored the mother’s pleas for non-court dispute resolution and settlement.

Whilst it is not a recent case, it highlights the importance of not pursuing unrealistic and baseless arguments, and not allowing animosity to cloud one’s judgment about the proportionality of costs. Pursuing litigation based on insincere claims and refusing to engage in non-court dispute resolution can lead to serious cost penalties.

EC v JC (2024)

This was a financial remedy case of modest means, with the main asset being the former family home worth £1.5million. The Court was particularly conscious of the parties’ needs, and how these could be adequately met using the limited funds available. During the litigation, the Husband gave misleading information in his Form E, and the Wife therefore felt the need to ask a disproportionate number of questions in relation to historical assets.

The judge commented that irreparable damage had been caused by the excessive costs of both parties, with a total of £228,000 spent on legal fees between them. This case is an example of the unfortunately common scenario where extensive legal fees can severely undermine the ability of both parties – and any children – to be adequately provided for going forward.

Read the judgment here: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2024/175

Xanthopoulos v Rakshina (2024)

In this Part III application, the judge held that the Husband’s conduct throughout the litigation had led to wholly disproportionate costs, as he breached nearly every order made throughout the proceedings. There was also a “horrifying” extent of costs in the children proceedings running concurrently.

The judge made it clear that both clients and lawyers have a responsibility to regularly review the costs being incurred, and that persistent non-compliance and unchecked escalation of fees can lead to serious judicial criticism and cost consequences.

Read the judgment here: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2024/84

BR v BR (2025)

This was an ultra-high net worth financial remedy case, with total assets of around £260million, including multiple businesses. Despite instructing a joint expert to value the businesses, both parties also instructed their own ‘shadow experts’ to scrutinise the joint expert’s report. Whilst the Court understood why the parties felt this was necessary, it found the Wife’s costs of £1.9m (just for the shadow experts, not for the overall financial remedy proceedings) to be wholly excessive.

The Wife was ultimately ordered to pay a portion of the Husband’s costs. Again, this case reminds litigants and lawyers alike that even in high-value cases, the principle of cost proportionality remains paramount — excessive expenditure will not be excused simply because the parties are wealthy.

Read the judgment here: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2025/88

DSD v MJW (Costs of MPS) (2025)

In this financial remedy case of limited means, a Wife made an application for ‘maintenance pending suit’ just 4 months prior to a Final Hearing. The amount sought was £500pcm, totalling £2,000. However, the costs of this application (within the context of the overall proceedings), were £8,500 for the Wife and £4,500 for the Husband – clearly exceeding the amount the Wife sought to recover.

The judge was particularly scathing in their judgment, dismissing the Wife’s application for maintenance pending suit and expressing that they were open to hearing a costs argument against the Wife.

They went so far to say, “This was a bad application to make at this stage … outside the exceptional […] it makes no commercial sense whatsoever”. This highlights that litigation must be both legally justified and commercially sensible.

Read the judgment here: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2025/119

To avoid disproportionate costs, it is important that both litigants and lawyers keep disputes focused, realistic, and proportionate in light of the case’s circumstances. Engaging in emotionally-driven litigation is likely to lead to a rapid spiral of excessive legal fees and wasted time.

For clients navigating the often daunting world of litigation, understanding the principle of proportionality is key to making informed, strategic decisions – litigation must be ‘worth it’, both emotionally and financially.

At Anthony Gold, we urge our clients to ask questions about the Court process and the costs involved, consider the proportionality of costs early, and work with us to pursue resolutions that are not only fair, but also proportionate. We also encourage clients to consider the various forms of non-court dispute resolution such as mediation, arbitration, and solicitor-led negotiation, to avoid the high costs and extended timescales often experienced in the Family Court. For more information about non-court dispute resolution, see our other articles at https://anthonygold.co.uk/insights/.