Skip to Main Content

Find Case LawBeta

Judgments and decisions from 2001 onwards

C (Children), Re

[2006] EWCA Civ 488

B4/2005/2053
Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWCA Civ 488
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM WANDSWORTH COUNTY COURT

(MR RECORDER WHITE)

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London, WC2

Friday, 24th March 2006

B E F O R E:

LORD JUSTICE MAY

LORD JUSTICE WALL

IN THE MATTER OF C (CHILDREN)

(DAR Transcript of

Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited

190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG

Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838

Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

THE APPELLANT APPEARED IN PERSON.

THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED.

J U D G M E N T

1.

LORD JUSTICE MAY: This is a renewed application which Mr C makes for permission to appeal against a costs order made by Mr Recorder White on 31 August 2005 in family proceedings. The subject matter of that application was related to the children’s schooling. The application failed and Mr C does not now seek to argue that the substantive decision that the recorder made was wrong. He does, however, seek permission to appeal the costs order. As I understand it, in matters such as this in family proceedings, costs orders are not generally made, see Re T (Order for costs) [2005] EWCA Civ 311 unless the court regards it as an exceptional case where one or other of the parties has behaved quite unreasonably. The Recorder in essence came to that conclusion. Wall LJ has refused permission to appeal on the papers. The matter came before him and Coleridge J on a previous occasion when the matter was adjourned for further material to be provided.

2.

I have reached the conclusion with some hesitation, but nevertheless, that Mr C’s argument and submission that on the facts as they were in August 2005, it was not unreasonable for him to have brought the application is reasonably arguable. I say no more than that, but it seems to me that he does cross the threshold of arguability for the purpose of giving permission to appeal and I would give him such permission.

3.

I would, however, add this: as I read the papers, the amount of costs in issue is £6,939. Now that is not an insignificant sum in the scheme of things, except that it is a really rather small sum in relation to the potential costs that might hereafter be spent on a full blown appeal to this court. I would, in those circumstances, strongly urge all those concerned on both sides to try to reach an accommodation in this respect. It seems to me that it is almost certainly a case where an accommodation would be less expensive for the parties than fighting the thing out in this court. I trust that Mr C will take appropriate steps to convey that point in utterly neutral terms to those acting for Mrs C. For those reasons, I would give permission in this case.

4.

LORD JUSTICE WALL: For the reasons my Lord has given, I agree that permission should be given.

Order: Application granted.

C (Children), Re

[2006] EWCA Civ 488

Download options

Download this judgment as a PDF (71.7 KB)

The original format of the judgment as handed down by the court, for printing and downloading.

Download this judgment as XML

The judgment in machine-readable LegalDocML format for developers, data scientists and researchers.