This title is available as part of LexisLibraryFind out more or request a trial
(Rix and Moore-Bick LJJ; Waller LCJ; 29 December 2006)
Given that the judge had concluded that the first wife and the son, the plaintiffs, had failed to get permission to bring proceedings out of time only because of concessions made by the defendant second wife in the course of the hearing, he had erred in awarding the second wife 25% of her costs. By reason of the second wife's concessions, which had established reasonable financial provision for them, the first wife and the son were effective winners. However, the second wife had won the claim based on an alleged contractual obligation to make financial provision for a divorced wife. Because the first wife and the son had failed to focus their claim sufficiently, the first wife and the son were to receive 40% of their costs of the family provision claim; the second wife was to receive all her costs of the contractual claim.
"the principal (monthly) periodical dealing with contemporary issues" Sir Mark Potter P