header-logo header-logo

23 January 2015 / Laura Mortimer
Issue: 7637 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Calls for a costs revolution

mortimer

The family law profession faced judicial castigation in a recent case, as Laura Mortimer explains

Mostyn J’s recent judgment of J v J [2014] EWHC 3654 (Fam), [2014] All ER (D) 153 (Nov) seems expressly aimed to provoke discussion among the family law profession. His comments on the failures of the lawyers involved to follow the new rules on both the instruction of single joint experts (PD25D) and hearing bundles (PD27A) are a stand-alone matter worth serious consideration. However, the more controversial discussion about disproportionate legal costs and how solicitors charge for their services is the focus of this article.

For those who have not read the case, in essence £920,000 or 31.9% of the matrimonial assets (£2,885,000) were spent on legal costs and expert fees. Mostyn J’s outrage that a seemingly straightforward case incurred such breathtakingly high fees is patent. However, Mostyn J does not limit his concern to the parties involved in J v J itself, but to the family law profession as a whole. He declares [paras 11 & 13]: “Although the mantra ‘something must be done’ is repeated

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll