Finally. An indemnity costs award against Mr Simon for his ‘troubling’ litigation conduct. The history whereby Mr and Mrs Simon obtained an order of the court which avoided Mrs Simon’s obligation to discharge her litigation loan without informing the lender is well rehearsed. It has been richly criticised by both the High Court and Court of Appeal.
More recently, having replaced his family specialist legal team with civil litigators, Mr Simon has attempted to distance himself from the actions of his family lawyers. He blames them for their ‘deplorable conduct’ in obtaining the order in his attempts to avoid an order for costs of his conduct. It hasn’t worked.
HHJ Peel has criticised the conduct of the lawyers – “I confess to being troubled about the involvement of H’s previous lawyers (all of whom, of course, have a duty to the court) in the events of February/March 2021 leading to the approval of the consent order. Who was responsible for the communications sent to Mr Cusworth QC, and who was aware of the contents of those communications? Who knew that when those communications were sent, Level were involved in the litigation, including intervening in the proceedings? Why did H’s legal team not draw this to the attention of Mr Cusworth QC?” – he has not allowed Mr Simon to hide behind them.
Ultimately however any submission deflecting blame and responsibility to his legal team are rejected as ‘unsustainable unless and until he waives the privilege’ and that must be right.
This is not the end of the road in this litigation which will no doubt continue, until the loan Mrs Simon took out to fund her litigation against Mr Simon is repaid. Hopefully sense will prevail before further costs orders are incurred.
Lauren Belinda Simon v Paul Mark Simon - Find Case Law - The National Archives