A v G

We consider that we have to make an award of costs in principle, subject to the rules, in favour of the father against the mother in respect of this highly unfortunate issue as to the date for payment of the lump sum.

Munby J disseminated his draft judgment in September 2008 whereupon, in a very elaborate submission, quite possibly an over-elaborate submission, the father protested at the illogic of sticking to 2005 as the date for its payment. The mother could then have conceded that point; but apparently she did not do so. In the event the father’s objections found no favour with the judge. The father, by Dr Pelling, then reiterated his objection in asking for permission to appeal. Such was refused by Munby J who, so Mr Holden tells us, said that the matter was fact-sensitive. Quite what he meant by that – in context -- I am not clear. At all events such was another stage at which the mother must have realised that the father considered that he had a legitimate point in relation to the date and that he had logic behind him; but nevertheless there was at that stage no concession on her part.

The next move was the issue in this court of an appellant’s notice, dated 3 February 2009, duly served on the mother. At that stage she should, in my view, have considered her position; have considered the logic behind the grounds of appeal; and have conceded the appeal. But she did not do so. The result has been that the matter has had to proceed in effect until today and that the father has been incurring costs of some sort in the interim. I have great sympathy for the mother. I am afraid however that I am not seduced by Mr Holden’s reference to ten files which might cast other light on the matter. The facts which I have described point inexorably to an award, in principle, of costs.

I agree.