Norris v Norris, Haskins v Haskins: CA 28 Jul 2003

The court considered how orders for costs were to be made in ‘big money’ cases.
Held: There were two sets of rules. Cases should be considered by first applying the Civil Procedure Rules. This would allow the court to consider the full range of circumstances of each case. The court required a full discretion, and that should be retained. When looking at Calderbank offers, the court could make fuller use of the provisions of the 1999 Rules, GW -v- RW needs rethinking, and the rules should be amended.
Dame Butler Sloss, Thorpe and Mantell LJJ
[2003] EWCA Civ 1084, Times 26-Aug-2003
Family Proceedings (Amendment No 2) Rules 1999 (1999 No 3491) 2.69B, Civil Procedure Rules 44.3
England and Wales
DoubtedGW v RW (Financial Provision: Departure from Equality) FD 18-Mar-2003
An entitlement to an equal division must reflect not only the parties’ respective contributions ‘but also an accrual over time’, and it would be ‘fundamentally unfair’ that a party who has made domestic contributions during a marriage of 12 years . .
CitedGojkovic v Gojkovic (No 2) CA 1-Apr-1991
In ancillary relief proceedings, the husband had not made frank disclosure of his assets. The final Calderbank offer of andpound;600,000 was made only the day before the substantive hearing. The offer was rejected. The judge awarded the wife a lump . .
CitedCalderbank v Calderbank CA 5-Jun-1975
Letter Without Prejudice Save as to Costs
Husband and wife disputed provision under 1973 Act, and a summons under section 17 of the 1882 Act. The wife had offered to transfer a house to H occupied by his mother, worth about pounds 12,000, in return for him leaving the matrimonial home. He . .
CitedMcDonnell v McDonnell CA 1977
In family proceedings, a costs letter had been written in the form suggested in Calderbank.
Held: The court accepted and endorsed the practice suggested by Cairns LJ. Ormrod LJ said: ‘The important factor which distinguishes this case is the . .
CitedCutts v Head and Another CA 7-Dec-1983
There had been a trial of 35 days regarding rights of way over land, which had proved fruitless, and where some orders had been made without jurisdiction. The result had been inconclusive. The costs order was now appealed, the plaintiff complaining . .
CitedButcher v Wolfe and Another CA 30-Oct-1998
The parties had been partners in a family farm. On dissolution there was a dispute as to apportionment of costs. An offer had been ‘without prejudice save as to costs’.
Held: Costs may be denied to a plaintiff who had received a Calderbank . .
CitedSinger (formerly Sharegin) v Sharegin 1984
In family proceedings, the starting point for the award of costs is that they prima facie follow the event but that presumption may be displaced much more easily than, and in circumstances which would not apply, in other divisions of the High Court. . .

Cited by:
CitedVaughan v Vaughan CA 2-Nov-2007
H appealed an ancillary relief order giving certain extra rights in the family property on its sale.
Held: ‘the case demonstrates that, in an ancillary relief appeal, even the most conscientious appellate judge can fall into error if, having . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.184906