This is a great piece that shows the importance of being completely open in parties' financial disclosure. The judge decided that the husband had not been open and honest which had resulted in considerably more work being involved than might have been necessary.
The judgment in Thiry v Thiry [2014] EWHC 4046 (Fam) by Sir Peter Singer has demonstrated the costly implications of failing to adhere to the court's strict disclosure rules. Didier Thiry, a property magnate, was ordered to pay to his exwife, Alisa not only around £17 million, but also all of her costs, amounting to £456,000, as well as a £500,000 "fighting chest" to assist Mrs Thiry in the event of any future litigation from her ex-husband.
Well worth reading.
Costs I am satisfied that there is no reason in principle which precludes summary assessment of costs by the trial judge save in the case of modest amounts. The original costs schedule sent to the husband (to which he has not responded) and supplied to me is in far fuller than the summary form upon which assessments by the judge at the hearing are normally based. The revised total is £29 short of £456,000. Subject to any further matters which may need to be brought to my attention when this judgement is handed down, therefore, I shall award costs against the husband in the sum of £456,000, which is intended to encompass all orders for costs hitherto made against him, whether or not as yet quantified
unknownx500
