- Cited — VA (Medical Treatment), Re 2023-10-13
“…f an appeal as well as to costs at first instance, although the application of the principle may be different. As Baroness Hale of Richmond observed in in Re S [2015] UKSC 20 at paragraph 29:…”
- Explained — Re N and A (1996 Hague Convention: Costs) 2023-07-25
“…tional 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 has to determine a question relating to th…”
- Considered — W (A Child), Re 2020-02-05
“…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 circumstances”, for example, as identified by Wilson J (as he then was) …”
- Cited — A (No. 2) (Children: Findings of Fact) 2019-11-14
“…The court is not bound by the cases put forward by the parties, but may adopt an alternative solution of its own: Re S (A Child) [2015] UKSC 20 at [20]. Judges are entitled, where the evidence justifies it, to make findings of fact that have not been sought by the parties, but they should be cautious w…”
- Cited — Vote Leave Ltd v The Electoral Commission 2019-11-12
“… conducted: for a recent affirmation of that principle, albeit in a different context, see para. 1 of the judgment ofLord Mance in Kennedy v Charity Commission [2015] UKSC 20, [2015] AC 455 (pp. 488-9). That value is particularly important in the case of investigations carried out by the Electoral Commission, both because of the cen…”
- Cited — Timokhina v Timokhin (Rev 1) 2019-07-18
“…44.2(3)) and that only rarely will costs orders be made in children proceedings; see: Re S (A Child)(Costs: Care Proceedings) [2015] UKSC 20 [2015] 2 FLR 208. The concession on behalf of the mother that she should be responsible for costs (at least on a standard basis) in respect of the withdrawn ap…”
- Followed — J (Children) 2019-07-04
“…ould, it is said, have followed the approach laid down by the Supreme Court in decisions in Re T (Care Proceedings: Costs) [2012] 1 WLR 2281 and Re S (A Child) [2015] UKSC 20, which explained that orders for costs in children cases are unusual and are in general confined to cases where the conduct of a party has been reprehensible o…”
- Considered — RP (Appeal costs) 2019-04-16
“…ng 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 been to make no order as to costs save i…”
- Cited — M (A Child) 2018-02-20
“…ists 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 too has many calls on its stretched resources.…”