E C-L v DM (Child abduction: Costs)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 April 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWHC 588 (Fam) |
| Date | 11 April 2005 |
| Court | Family Division |
FAMILY DIVISION
Before Mr Justice Ryder.
Children - abduction - varying costs practice in child abduction cases
Although in child abduction cases there would normally be no order for costs, where a party's conduct had been unreasonable or there was a disparity of means, the court could consider whether to exercise its discretion to order costs against a publicly funded party in accordance with normal civil principles.
Mr Justice Ryder, so stated in the Family Division, when ordering a costs inquiry following proceedings in which the plaintiff mother, E C-L, had claimed relief under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 concerning the alleged abduction of the parties' child by the defendant, his father, DM.
Ms Debbie Taylor for the mother; Mr Richard Harrison for the father; Mr Jeremy Rosenblatt for the Official Solicitor.
MR JUSTICE RYDER said that, having found the mother to have been unreasonable in the conduct of the case through her persistent pursuit of uncorroborated false allegations of abduction and serious dishonesty involving the forgery of documents, the court had given the mother permission to withdraw her originating summons.
At the conclusion of the hearing the father, a man of limited means who was bringing up the parties' child on his own without any financial support from the mother and who had been wholly successful in the outcome of the proceedings, had asked for his costs against the mother.
The mother, who was publicly funded, contended that there should be no order for costs in view of article 26 of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction signed at The Hague in 1980 and as a matter of public policy, so as not to deter genuine abduction applicants or the acceptance of instructions by solicitors from the child abduction unit of the Official Solicitor's office.
It was accepted by the Official Solicitor that section 10 of the 1985 Act operated so as to incorporate and apply to Hague Convention proceedings the general costs powers provided for in the rules relating to family proceedings.
The Official Solicitor and the mother submitted that, having regard to the context of the whole article, the absence of an express power in the final paragraph of article 26 of the Hague Convention to award costs against a plaintiff was determinative.
However, it was inconsistent to say that the rules generally, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S B v M B
...Hague Convention jurisdiction, the basis of the power to award costs was analysed and confirmed by Ryder J (as he then was) in EC-L v DM (Child Abduction: costs) [2005] EWHC 588 (Fam), [2005] 2 FLR 772. here Section 11 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 was in focus and the Family Proceedin......
-
N and A (1996 Hague Convention: Costs)
...of those principles to the circumstances of the case.” 10 These principles apply in cases of alleged child abduction. In EC-L v DM (Child Abduction: Costs) [2005] EWHC 588 (Fam), [2005] 2 FLR 722, Ryder J said (at paragraph 33): “It should be the expectation in child abduction cases that t......
-
R v R
...there are no special rules for applications for orders for costs brought at the conclusion of Hague Convention proceedings ( EC-L v DM [2005 2 FLR 772, there are special considerations why applications should not be entertained pending that conclusion: prospective applicants should not be d......
-
B v A
...and practices relating to making without notice applications. The application for costs against the father 80 I was referred to EC-L v DM (Child Abduction Costs) [2005] 2 FLR 772 on the approach to be taken to ordering a party to pay costs in a Hague Convention case. I have applied it and i......
-
Between tort law, contract law, and child law: how to compensate the left-behind parent in international child abduction cases.
...Madjar (Unreported, Family Court of Melbourne, 12 Nov. 2002) NO. ML 9066X of 2000 (Austl.). (186) EC-L v. DM (Child abduction: Costs) [2005] EWHC 588 (Fam.) [64] (Eng.) (stating that an order for costs of in AC proceedings is "very rare"). The attitude of the U.K. courts can also be seen in......