Justifying costs in Children Act Proceedings- RC v FP [2025] EWFC 124

In RC v FP [2025] EWFC 124, the parties were in a relationship from 2016. In 2019, whilst pregnant with the father’s child, the mother discovered the father was in a relationship with another woman, whom he had another child with and this partner was very shortly to give birth to that second child. The relationship thereafter ended.

On 22nd September 2022, the father applied for child arrangements and parental responsibility orders. An independent social worker was instructed. Contact was instigated in April 2023, with the last contact in April 2024. On 29th August 2024, the father applied for permission to withdraw his applications. The mother did not oppose the application to withdraw for parental responsibility but did in relation to the child arrangements order. Permission to withdraw was given for both.

The mother raised an application for costs. In the mother’s N260, she evidenced costs incurred of £514,115.97. It was accepted by mother’s counsel that this was an “extraordinary amount” but was a product of the unreasonable approach taken by the father, prior to and during the proceedings. The father argued his conduct was not unreasonable and that the only costs he should pay were in relation to the mother’s application for declaration of paternity.

The case reiterates the key principles under s51 Senior Courts Act 1981, FPR 28 and PD28A, along with providing a helpful summary on a number of key cases including R v R (Costs: Child Case) [1997] 2 FLR 95, Re T (Order for Costs) [2005] 2 FLR 681 and more recently in Re E (Children: Costs) [2025] EWCA Civ 183.

In coming to his conclusion, the Judge stated “This is not a straight-forward application to determine. It goes without saying that F’s conduct towards M was dishonest and reprehensible. She was grossly deceived. Parts of F’s behaviour have been rightly characterised as controlling, as by his deception he engineered M to behave in a way she would not have done otherwise. M is the victim of domestic abuse and F was the perpetrator of the same. However, this is not the question I have determine. The applicable costs rules require me to consider whether F’s conduct within the meaning of CPR r44.2(4) justifies a costs order and where that conduct “includes” the matters set out in sub-rule (5) – and which are matters principally directed towards how a party has approached/pursued/defended the litigation (before as well as during the proceedings) and the extent to which they have succeeded in their application” (para 58 and 59).

The court considered the father’s conduct, including the timing of the applications, his attempts to seek confidentiality agreements, his late withdrawal of applications and his non-attendance at hearings.

The court considered that there were certain aspects of the father’s conduct which did amount to unreasonable behaviour and the departure from the usual position of not awarding costs in private law children cases. However, such conduct did not amount to warrant an indemnity costs order. Accordingly the father was ordered to pay 75% of the mother’s costs, subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis. The father was ordered to make a payment on account of £192,793.50 within 14 days.