The Court of Appeal heard a father's appeal against an order to pay £385,587 of the mother's costs in Children Act 1989 proceedings, and restated the test for costs in cases about children.
Key facts
- Who: Parents in private law children proceedings where costs are in issue
- From: 13 March 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Matthew James Pringle v Olivia Margaret Nervo [2026] EWCA Civ 266
In Pringle v Nervo [2026] EWCA Civ 266, handed down on 13 March 2026, the Court of Appeal (Lady Justice King, Lord Justice Males and Lord Justice Stuart-Smith) considered an appeal from the Family Court. The hearing took place on 29 January 2026.
Background
The appeal concerned a costs order dated 8 May 2025. Deputy High Court Judge Nicholas Allen KC had ordered the father, Matthew Pringle, to pay £385,587. That was 75% of the £514,115.97 the mother, Olivia Nervo, had incurred in private law proceedings under the Children Act 1989. The proceedings, now concluded, concerned the couple's daughter, who is now rising seven.
The parents were in a relationship from late 2016 to early 2019. The father lives in New Zealand. The mother is a DJ with a large social media following. A central tension was her wish to tell her story publicly, set against the father's wish to protect the privacy of himself, the child and his New Zealand family.
For nearly three years the parties corresponded through lawyers about financial issues and how the father could be introduced to the child. A therapy process begun in 2021 was paused. On 22 September 2022 the father applied for a Child Arrangements Order and a Parental Responsibility Order.
The question
The issue was whether the judge was wrong to make a costs order at all, given the high bar in children cases: a party's behaviour must have been "reprehensible or unreasonable".
The legal framework
The court set out the general rule. It is unusual for costs to be ordered in proceedings about children. The Supreme Court in Re T [2012] UKSC 36 and Re S [2015] UKSC 20 said the approach is the same in public and private law cases. Costs orders should be made only in unusual circumstances, such as reprehensible conduct or a stance beyond the band of what is reasonable.
The court also cited Re E (children: costs) [2025] EWCA Civ 183, where Peter Jackson LJ described the approach as "simple, flexible and well-established". The mother's counsel argued that "unusual" and "exceptional" set different thresholds. Lady Justice King held that this was a semantic distinction with no relevance to the appeal or to the first-instance court.
The court also noted the discretion under CPR 44.2 and the factors for assessing amount under CPR 44.4.
What this means for parents in children proceedings
- Costs orders in children cases are unusual rather than routine.
- The test centres on conduct: whether a party's behaviour in the proceedings was reprehensible or unreasonable, or their stance was beyond the band of what is reasonable.
- The same approach applies in public law and private law proceedings.
Sources
- Matthew James Pringle v Olivia Margaret Nervo [2026] EWCA Civ 266, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 13 March 2026