Harrison Engler summarises a judgment for Family Law Week about an appeal against a costs order in non-molestation proceedings. The judgment highlights concerns about procedural delays in non-molestation applications.
Background
The applicant, Mr M, applied for a Non-Molestation Order against his former wife, Ms O, in September 2023. The final hearing was delayed and listed for October 2024, more than a year after the incidents on which the application was founded occurred.
Before the hearing in August 2024, Ms O invited Mr M to withdraw his application and pay costs of approximately £14,000.
Procedural history and first instance decision
At the final hearing, Mr M confirmed there had been no incidents since February 2024 and that he no longer required protection. The judge struck out the application, finding that it had been delayed and would not have succeeded even if heard earlier. Mr M was ordered to pay Ms O’s costs, summarily assessed at £9,000.
Appeal and decision
Poole J allowed Mr M’s appeal, ruling that while the first judge was entitled to dismiss the application, they erred in law by applying the principle that costs follow the event, which does not apply in family law proceedings.
Given that the court’s own delays had contributed to the case being dismissed, Poole J ruled that the correct costs order was ‘no order as to costs.’
Key procedural points
Poole J also highlighted key procedural issues:
- non-molestation applications should be heard promptly—delays may defeat their purpose.
- the general rule that costs follow the event does not apply in family cases, but the court retains discretion.
- litigants in person cannot rely on court emails for legal advice and must make formal applications for guidance.
View the full judgment summary on Family Law Week.