Legal fees taxed?

It sounds as thought this was a claim under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 where principle of 'the loser pays the costs' will apply.

What what your position at the outset? Did you denby any claim your ex had against the property?

What was your ex's position at the outset?

What offers to settle were made?

Charles

It is a TOLATA case. My position was that he didnt have a claim against my property.

My ex's claimed a beneficial interest to the share deemed appropriate by the court, then on the first day of the hearing when I gave my offers, he changed his pleadings to immediate sale and 50% share.

He got 30% share - I just want to pay him off and get rid of him from my life. He now saying he doesnt want immediate sale - keeps changing the goalposts all the time!

Unfortunately the court will view his claim as successful and your defence as unsuccessful.

There is room for movement as he claimed 50% but only got 30% but if you denied his claim completely he had no choice but to take the matter to trial as you were offering 'nothing' and he wanted 'something'.

Did you enter into negotiations, by mediation or otherwise, prior to the final hearing?

Charles

Before the final hearing started I offered first £20,000 then £25,000 but they rejected it saying they wanted £41,500 plus costs.

They also changed their pleadings to immediate sale and 50%.

Since the Judgement they have now changed their minds again and don't want sale until youngest is 18 ie 14 years time. I just want rid!

What I was wondering is can I query his costs when he has changed his pleadings so many times? It went to court twice on the wrong pleadings and was thrown out by the Judge. Third time they got lucky but why should I pay all the legal costs for the wrong pleadings?

He has never been interested in mediation or negotiating any settlement!

He got 37.5k but wanted 41.5k


You offered up to £25k prior to the hearing commencing.

It seems likely that you will have to pay his costs but you can argue that he should not obtain all of his costs due to the following reasons:

1. He refused to negotiate thereby forcing litigation which incurred unnecessary costs. Had you had the opportunity of making an offer at a negotiation, his legal fees would have been substantially less not least due to avoiding the costs of trial.

2. The amount that he claimed was not awarded. He claimed too much and you offered too little, notwithstanding point (1) above. It follows that the award of costs should be limited to a percentage less than 100%.

3. The costs are disproportionate to the amount claimed. To spend 16.5k or however much he is claiming to obtain £37.5k is demonstrably disproportionate.

You say that there was no negotiation but did the court order that the parties consider alternative dispute resolution (e.g. mediation)? If so, did the other side suggest that this take place? If not, you can use this as an example of your ex being litigious.

You also mention that you wish to pay off the 30% sooner rather than later. This should be your choice as you want to continue with your life with financial independence. You will also have to pay the mortgage which means that you will be increasing the equity (if you have a repayment mortgage) in which you will only receive a 70% benefit as the remainder will go to your ex. This is based on the equity being split 70:30. If the value of the property is subject to that split, the position is different.

Charles

I am in complete shock - I have been told I have to pay all his costs which have now gone from £16,500 to £52,500 because he was on legal aid and because he won they were able to recalculate costs to private legal costs!

Nobody said they could do that. Now I have to pay him £37,500 plus £52,500 plus my own legal costs!!!

Didn't think things could get any worse!!