High Court refuses to stay a father’s appeal over part-paid £26,000 costs order

The High Court Family Division refused a mother's application to stay a father's appeal until he paid a costs order in full, finding the test for "Hadkinson relief" was not met in this children case.

Background

In [2026] EWHC 2359 (Fam), Mr Justice Macdonald, sitting in the High Court Family Division on 11 June 2026, dealt with a mother's application for a "Hadkinson order". The name comes from Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] 1 All ER 571.

The father was appealing a decision of HHJ Williscroft in proceedings under the Children Act 1989 about the parties' daughter, now seven. HHJ Williscroft's order included a requirement that the father pay the mother's costs of £26,000 by 2 April 2026. Permission to appeal the costs order was refused, but permission was granted on other grounds. The appeal was listed for 13 July 2026.

The father accepted he had not complied with the whole of the costs order. Part of the sum had been enforced.

The question

The mother asked for the appeal to be stayed until the costs were paid in full. As an alternative, she asked for it to be struck out unless they were paid by a set date. The father argued that, because his appeal concerned decisions about a child's welfare, the criteria set out in the cases following Hadkinson were not met.

The decision

The judge dismissed the application.

The reasoning

The judge noted that the order sought had been described as a "draconian order of last resort" going to a litigant's right of access to the court, here the right of appeal. In this case, which concerned a child's welfare, he set out a test requiring that:

• the respondent to the application is in contempt;
• the contempt is deliberate and continuing;
• it impedes the course of justice;
• there is no other realistic and effective remedy;
• the order is proportionate and goes no further than necessary; and
• the order is in the child's best interests.

The father conceded he remained in contempt because part of the costs was still outstanding, so the contempt was continuing in part. The issue was whether it was deliberate. The judge cited Laing v Laing, as noted with approval by the Court of Appeal in Assoun v Assoun (No 1). That case says the breach must be wilful, meaning a voluntary, deliberate, knowing and continuing breach by a person well able to comply.

The mother pointed to a financial statement of August 2025 showing about £20,000 in the father's account, and to his work as a lorry driver. The father said:

• his income was £1,600 a month;
• he paid £700 in rent and about £500 in other expenses;
• the £20,000 had gone on legal fees in January 2026; and
• he had borrowed from friends and family to fund the appeal.

The judge was not satisfied, on the information available, that the contempt was wilful. Enforcement had found about £11,657.12 net in three bank accounts, now frozen by Barclays, which the father accepts should be paid to the mother. The judge noted the mother's general accusations of hidden money but said there was no evidence that the enforcement proceedings showed further funds. The father intended to offer a payment schedule.

The judge also said Hadkinson relief is an exceptional case management order of last resort and should not be used as enforcement by the back door. It should not be used to get faster payment than the court dealing with enforcement may consider appropriate. Relying on CD v EF (Temporary Relocation) [2021] EWHC 955 (Fam), he said that granting relief could stop a person bringing an asserted welfare error to the appeal court.

Sources

• P v R (Refusal of Hadkinson Relief), [2026] EWHC 2359 (Fam), High Court Family Division, 11 June 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2026/2359