The Family Court ruled on 4 August 2026 that a mother discharged as an intervenor faces no costs order, while costs between the divorced couple stay reserved until the renewed financial remedies proceedings.
Key facts
- Who: Divorcing or divorced couples in financial remedies disputes, and third parties who intervene in them, especially on costs.
- From: 4 August 2026
- Source: [2026] EWFC 267, James Morgan Copinger-Symes v Maria-Christina Perez De La Sala & Anor, Family Court (Central Family Court), HHJ Edward Hess sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
Background
The husband and wife married on 24 October 1998 and separated in July 2017. Decree absolute was pronounced on 9 June 2022. A consent order settling the financial remedies claims was approved on 4 March 2022. The wife later applied to set it aside, and her mother joined the case as an intervenor.
After an eight-day hearing in May 2024, the judge set the consent order aside and dismissed the intervenor's application. The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals on 17 March 2026 ([2026] EWCA Civ 282). The judge's 7 August 2024 order had reserved the costs of all applications since 4 March 2022 to the final hearing of the renewed financial remedies application.
With the case back before him, the judge discharged the mother as a party, except on the question of those costs. The costs were substantial on all sides: £598,266 for the husband, £458,628 for the wife and £364,154 for the intervenor. Court of Appeal costs were dealt with separately.
The question
Should the 2024 costs reservation be changed now that the intervenor was leaving the case, and should any costs order be made against her?
The decision
The judge made no costs order against the intervenor. The wife had said she did not seek costs from her mother and wanted any order made against the husband. The intervenor asked for a recital that the court was not invited to make a costs order against her, and for no order at all. Neither the husband nor the wife objected, so the judge treated this as agreed and approved it. Any costs orders will be made between the husband and wife only.
On the costs between the couple, the judge left his 7 August 2024 order unchanged. The decision on those costs will be taken in the renewed financial remedies proceedings.
The reasoning
The judge found most persuasive the husband's argument linking costs to the duty to negotiate openly and reasonably. He said a party may succeed in setting aside a consent order yet fail to negotiate openly and reasonably about its replacement. If the losing party made an open offer more generous than the consent order, and one that in effect recognised the non-disclosure through a compensatory lump sum, that must be weighed in the costs of the set-aside application.
He stressed that he had not decided this was so here, but could not rule it out. He did not accept the wife's argument that costs should simply follow the event regardless of the wider context. He also left open whether he should see any without prejudice correspondence on the set-aside issue.
A hearing is listed for 10 September 2026.
What this means for people in financial remedies disputes
- Winning an application to set aside a financial order does not automatically decide who pays the costs. The court may look at how each side behaved in negotiations afterwards.
- Where costs are reserved, the decision can wait until the later proceedings.
- Anyone intervening in a case should be aware that their own costs position may be dealt with separately from the main parties'. Get advice on costs risks before taking part.
Sources
- [2026] EWFC 267, James Morgan Copinger-Symes v Maria-Christina Perez De La Sala & Anor, https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/267