Wife Ordered to Pay £275,000 for Litigation Misconduct

Overview of the Judgment

A wife has been ordered to pay £275,000 towards her former husband’s legal costs after the Family Court found that her behaviour during financial remedy proceedings amounted to egregious litigation misconduct and was wholly outside the norm.

The ruling followed a fully contested trial in which Mr Justice Cusworth had already made serious findings against the wife in relation to her conduct during the marriage. In a subsequent judgment dealing solely with costs, the judge said her conduct of the proceedings themselves had been “little better” and agreed with submissions that she had treated the High Court with contempt throughout the financial litigation.

Failure to Attend Key Hearings

The court found that the wife failed to attend key hearings, including the First Appointment and the pre-trial review, despite being fully aware of them. The judge rejected her explanations for non-attendance and said her disengagement meant there was no financial dispute resolution hearing and no realistic prospect of settlement before trial. As a result, the husband had no choice but to proceed to a contested final hearing.

Disclosure Failures and Untrue Statements

The judge also found that the wife failed to serve her Form E on time, delayed providing it to the husband’s solicitors, and failed to support her questionnaire responses with any documentary evidence. He said she had used her disclosure as a platform to advance a false conduct case and later accepted in oral evidence that many of her narrative answers were untrue. Further statements and open proposals were served very late, and her financial claims were described as far removed from any realistic outcome.

Ignored Early Offer

An early open offer made by the husband in June 2025 broadly reflected the order ultimately made by the court. The judge noted that the offer was ignored and that the wife did not engage in settlement discussions or make counter-proposals until several months later, by which point significant costs had already been incurred.

Why Indemnity Costs Were Justified

The husband’s costs following the First Appointment were stated to total £324,352. The judge accepted that most of those costs were incurred after the early settlement offer and found that they were caused by the wife’s deliberate and tactical disengagement from the proceedings. He described her behaviour as egregious, concluding that it went far beyond ordinary non-compliance and amounted to litigation misconduct of a high degree.

The judge held that the case was plainly out of the norm and justified an award of indemnity costs. He ordered the wife to pay 85% of the husband’s costs, rounded to £275,000, to be deducted from the lump sum otherwise payable to her. The court also concluded that, even after meeting the costs order, the wife would still be able to meet her housing and income needs at a reasonable level.

Case Details

Case: LP v MP
Neutral citation: [2026] EWFC 36
Court: Family Court
Judge: Mr Justice Cusworth
Date of judgment: 27 January 2026

How We Support Clients Facing Financial Remedy and Conduct Issues

Significant costs orders, such as the indemnity order made in LP v MP, demonstrate how seriously the court treats litigation misconduct, non‑engagement, and failures to comply with financial remedy obligations. We advise clients on all aspects of financial proceedings, including disclosure requirements, realistic settlement proposals, costs risks, and strategies where the other party is not engaging with the process.

Our Private Family Law team helps clients understand their rights, obligations and the likely approach the court will take in cases involving conduct, non‑compliance, or disputes about costs. We work to protect clients’ financial positions and to achieve efficient, fair outcomes wherever possible.

Please contact us if you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of family law.

About the Author

Joe is a Senior Associate Solicitor in the Private Family Team. He trained at Machins Solicitors and returned to the firm in 2022 after working for a leading London family law practice. With over eight years’ experience, he advises on all areas of family law, including high‑net‑worth, same‑sex and international matters, and is a confident courtroom advocate.

Joe also has experience in corporate law, supporting his work on cases involving complex company and commercial structures, and has provided pro bono advice through the Citizens Advice Bureau. He holds a Law degree from Bournemouth University and a Master’s in Law from the University of Law in London.