- Explained — Re N and A (1996 Hague Convention: Costs) 2023-07-25
“…o make no order as to costs save in exceptional circumstances. The rationale for this practice has been explained in two judgments of the Supreme Court in Re T [2012] UKSC 36, and subsequently in Re S [2015] UKSC 20. The principal reason, as recognised by Baroness Hale of Richmond in her judgment in Re S, is that, whenever a court h…”
- Considered — W (A Child), Re 2020-02-05
“…The correct approach to applications for costs involving children has been considered on two occasions by the Supreme Court: firstly, in Re T (children) [2012] UKSC 36; and subsequently in relation to appeals in Re S [2015] UKSC 20. Baroness Hale of Richmond confirmed that “costs orders should only be made in unusual circumst…”
- Cited — Timokhina v Timokhin (Rev 1) 2019-07-18
“…thstanding the general approach to costs in cases involving children, an order for costs could legitimately have been made; see: Re T (Care Proceedings: Costs) [2012] UKSC 36, [2013] 1 FLR 133.…”
- Followed — RP (Appeal costs) 2019-04-16
“…he approach to be followed when considering applications for costs in cases involving children has been considered on two occasions by the Supreme Court in ReT [2012] UKSC 36, and subsequently in Re S [2015] UKSC 20. We have those principles firmly in mind. For many years, the general practice in proceedings relating to children has…”
- Cited — M (A Child) 2018-02-20
“…The local authority resists such an order, relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Re T (Costs: Care Proceedings) [2012] UKSC 36 and Re S (A Child )(Costs: Care Proceedings) [2015] UKSC 20. It argues that it cannot be said to be unreasonable for it to have defended the appeal and that it…”