A recent judgement of the Court of Appeal (CoA) serves as a firm reminder that the Family Court remains a distinct arena where the standard civil litigation rule of thumb—that the loser pays the winner—does not apply.
Background:
This case involves a high-stakes appeal regarding costs orders in private law children proceedings. The parties—Matthew Pringle (a wealthy man from New Zealand) and Olivia Nervo (a successful DJ and social media influencer)—were in a relationship from 2016 to 2019, during which the mother discovered that the father had maintained a secret family arrangement in New Zealand. Following the end of the relationship, the parties engaged in nearly three years of legal correspondence and attempted non-court dispute resolution to settle financial issues and arrange contact. A central conflict involved the mother's desire to share her experiences with her large social media following versus the father's insistence on privacy for his New Zealand family.
The father eventually applied for a Child Arrangements Order (CAO) and a Parental Responsibility Order (PRO) in September 2022 after media-related disputes. Initially, the proceedings followed a standard path, with an independent social worker facilitating successful contact between the father and child.
However, in September 2023, the mother changed her legal representation. She shifted her strategy significantly, seeking a fact-finding hearing to prove allegations of reproductive coercion, controlling behaviour, and "rape" by deception based on the father's initial dishonesty about his other family. These applications for a fact-finding hearing were refused by the Court, which found that the father had already made sufficient admissions regarding his deceit and that a full hearing was not necessary for the sake of the child's welfare.
The litigation became increasingly strained, and the father eventually withdrew his applications for a PRO and CAO in August 2024, citing mental health struggles and the impact of the mother's persistent desire for publicity. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the father was largely successful in his substantive goals, including obtaining a Transparency Order to protect the child's privacy until age eighteen. Despite this, the Lower Court ordered the father to pay 75% of the mother's legal costs, totalling over £385,000, after categorising his late withdrawal from the case and his non-attendance at hearings, due to ‘anxiety’, as unreasonable conduct. The father appealed this costs order to the CoA.
Decision:
The CoA allowed the appeal and substituted an order of no order as to costs, save for the specific costs related to a declaration of parentage. The Appellate Court emphasised that, under the principles set out in existing case law, costs orders in this jurisdiction are exceptional and require a party’s behaviour to be "reprehensible or unreasonable" in the context of the litigation. The Court found that the Judge at first instance erred by failing to evaluate the conduct of both parties as required by the Civil Procedure Rules (CPRs), focusing instead on a narrow set of procedural failings by the father while entirely ignoring the mother’s aggressive litigation strategy.
Regarding the father's motivation, the Court reasoned that it was not unreasonable for a wealthy individual to seek the statutory privacy protections of the Family Court, and the Lower Judge had wrongly relied on limited, untested pre-action correspondence to find an improper motive. The Appellate Court also rejected the idea that the father’s late withdrawal from the proceedings justified a costs award, noting that late settlements are common in family law and that it was actually the mother’s refusal to accept the withdrawal that drove the final surge in legal fees. Critically, the CoA highlighted that the mother's dramatic change in legal approach in late 2023 was the true catalyst for the soaring costs.
Implications:
This judgement provides a definitive restatement of the "no order" principle in private law children proceedings. The judgement clarifies that "unreasonableness" must be substantial and directly related to the conduct of the litigation, not the underlying moral failings of a parent. While the father’s deceit regarding his secret family was described by the Court as "shameful," it did not justify a costs order because it pertained to the history of the relationship rather than a procedural abuse of court process. For a costs order to be triggered, the behaviour must usually involve objective misconduct, such as fabricating allegations of abuse or defying court orders.
The Court expressed significant concern over the mother’s change in legal strategy midway through the proceedings. This serves as a warning against "the raising of litigation temperature". When a party moves away from a consensual path to seek "narrative" or "symbolic" judgements that do not materially affect the child's welfare, they risk not only losing the issue but also forfeiting any claim to costs. The Court viewed the mother’s pursuit of a fact-finding hearing as a "potential solid disadvantage" to the child, effectively neutralising her claim for a costs award.
