Forbes-Smith v Forbes-Smith and Chadwick: CA 1901

W petitioned for judicial separation. H cross-petitioned for divorce, citing C as co-respondent. The actions were consolidated, W’s petition withdrawn, and a decree absolute of divorce granted to H. A costs order was made against C. On taxation, H asked for his costs of defending W’s original suit.
Held: The consolidation of the suits was not properly so called, and H was not entitled against C to his costs of defending W’s original suit to which C was not a party. The court had no jurisdiction to make such an order, since he had not been a ‘party to the proceedings’ as required under the 1857 Act.


[1901] P 258, [1901] LJP 61, [1901] LT 789, [1901] 50 WR 6, [1901] 17 TLR 587, [1901] 45 Sol Jo 595


Judicature Act 1890 5, Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 34


England and Wales

Cited by:

OverruledAiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .
CitedEarl v Earland Kyle; Earl v Earl 1926
There had been cross-petitions between H and W, and they had been consolidated by court order.
Held: The court had no jurisdiction to order the co-respondent to pay the costs of the wife’s suit since she was not a party to that petition . .
CitedTravelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ SC 30-Oct-2019
Challenge to the making of a non-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 against the product liability insurer of one of the defendants in litigation being managed under a Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’). Many of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Family

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.193432