S v S: No expensive stone left unturned
As someone who reads (or at least scans) virtually every family law report that is freely published online, I all too frequently come across financial remedies cases that involve "litigation that loses all sense of costs proportionality", to use the words once spoken by Mr Justice Holman. And of course every experienced family lawyer has come across it: clients who simply want to argue over everything , irrespective of whether it will make a difference to the outcome of the case. The latest example of the genre is S v S , the judgment in which has just been published on Bailii , having been handed down by His Honour Judge Booth back in July. The judgment concerned the final hearing of a husband's financial remedies application. For the purpose of this post I need say little about the facts or outcome of the case, save that it involved net assets, excluding pensions, of around £1.7 million, according to my rough calculation. What I do want to report is the comments of Jud
