Summary
The proceeding were in respect of the costs for a maintenance claim.
The parties had a child, born in 2008. The mother sought maintenance by making an application in May 2011.
Her legal team became aware that the mother was also entitled of a lump sum and property settlement under Reg 4/2009 which is why the second application was initiated in March 2012.
This was an application by the mother against the father for funding (or contribution) to the legal costs. The court had jurisdiction. In this context, Mrs Justice Theis noted:
“26 As I have said during the hearing, I am very concerned about the proportionality of costs in this case, looking at the estimates in relation to total global figures if this went to a contested trial. The best part of £500,000 would be spent by these parties, which, on the mother's case at its highest, is at least 25% of what she is seeking taking her claim at its highest. If the question of strike out and the stay application is left to the start of the hearing in October it will, in my judgment, effectively prevent any active discussions in this case, if this court is to retain jurisdiction. The battle lines will have been drawn up and that is why I think that issue needs to be resolved sooner rather than later if the court is to pay any kind of credence to the overriding objective set out in Rules 1.1 (2) and 1.4 (2) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 in relation to proportionality and active case management by the court. Therefore, I will keep judicial continuity with this matter and have made arrangements to list the hearing of the application to dismiss and the stay application on Friday 22nd June 2012 in the Brighton County Court at 10.30am with a time estimate of one and a half days. The matter is to continue in the Medway County Court on the following Monday, 25th June 2012.
27 As I have said, I will give the father's team an opportunity to reflect on whether they wish to pursue the procedural applications to dismiss and for a stay and they are to notify the mother's team and the court by 12 noon on 11th May 2012 if they are going to do so.” [26-27]