Costs in Children Proceedings: The Court's High Threshold

In private law children proceedings, the general rule is that the court will not make an order for costs. This principle ensures that parents can freely advocate for what they believe to be in the best interests of their children without the looming threat of financial consequences. However, courts do retain the discretion to award costs if a party’s litigation conduct is deemed unreasonable or reprehensible.

Recently, two significant Court of Appeal decisions have firmly reinforced just how high the threshold for such costs orders remains. These rulings serve as a vital reminder of the court's cautious approach to penalising parents financially during highly emotive family disputes.

Victoria Toy, Head of the Children Team at AFP Bloom LLP, was involved in both of these appeals, ably assisted by Faye Simpson and Kelly Giambrone. Together, they reconfirmed the legal landscape surrounding litigation conduct and financial penalties in family law.

Overturning a £385,000 Costs Order

The first  decision came in the case of Pringle v Nervo ([2026] EWCA Civ 266). The initial judgment had imposed a staggering £385,000 costs order against a father, citing his conduct during the litigation.

Upon review, the Court of Appeal overturned this substantial costs order. The judges emphasised that the father’s litigation conduct did not meet the stringent threshold required to classify it as 'reprehensible behavior' and nor was the mother’s litigation conduct considered fully by the court below. The ruling clearly demonstrated that courts must exercise caution before departing from the general rule of no costs. Imposing heavy financial burdens requires extraordinary circumstances, which were simply absent in these circumstances.

You can read the full details of this judgment here.

Discouraging Satellite Litigation

The second ruling occurred in Re M (A Child: Costs) ([2026] EWCA Civ 381). This case involved the set aside of a costs order against a father following the mother’s successful appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the father’s litigation conduct was not unreasonable. Furthermore, the judgment highlighted a strong judicial desire to discourage satellite litigation concerning costs in children matters. Lengthy arguments over who pays the legal bills only distract from the primary focus of these proceedings: the welfare of the child. 

Further insights into this case can be found here.

Why the Threshold for Costs Remains High

These dual decisions highlight a consistent theme within the family justice system. The courts are acutely aware that private law children proceedings are inherently stressful and emotionally charged. If parents faced the constant risk of paying their another parties’ legal fees, they might be deterred from raising legitimate welfare concerns or fighting for appropriate child arrangements.

Protecting a Parent's Right to Advocate

Ultimately, the core objective of the family court is to safeguard the welfare of children and make the right decisions for them into the future. 

The children team at AFP Bloom, led by Partner Victoria Toy, is proud to have played a role in these important legal developments. We extend our sincere thanks to counsel at 4PB, 1 KBW and 5RB for their exceptional expertise and collaboration on these cases.

If you need specialist advice regarding complex family disputes or wish to understand more about our legal impact, please visit our Reported Cases page. Our dedicated team is ready to provide the strategic guidance you need to navigate the complexities of family law.