Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Charles Howard QC and Joshua Viney (instructed by Hughes Fowler Carruthers) for the Applicant
James Ewins QC and Janine McGuigan (instructed by Stewarts Law) for the Respondent
      By my judgment in substantive financial remedy proceedings, I determined that W should, on a needs based award, exit the marriage with a total of �7.45m.
      H makes an application for costs assessed in the sum of �310,000. W initially proposed to H that there be no order as to costs. H rejected that proposal, and she now seeks no order as to costs save that H should pay her costs of two interlocutory hearings together with her costs incurred in addressing the agreement arguments. The sum sought by W is �264,010.
      The total costs are about �1.6m (W �917,000 and H �709,000). The difference is mainly accounted for by H not being liable to VAT. Of these sums, H paid about �360,000 towards W�s costs up to June 2021.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.