Automated report. This article was drafted by software from the sources listed below, checked automatically against them, and read by the editor, Sam Allcock, before it was published. Law Week labels every article produced this way. A person is answerable for it: if something here is wrong, write to editor@lawweek.co.uk and we will correct it on the page and say what changed.
A mother has been ordered to pay £27,109.75 towards a father’s legal costs after Mr Justice Poole found she had acted unreasonably in pursuing allegations that he had sexually abused their daughter, allegations the court found were not proved.
In a judgment handed down on 19 October 2026 in FAZ v MAZ (Costs) [2026] EWFC 301, the judge summarily assessed the father’s claimed costs of £256,667.80 down to £108,439 including fees and VAT, finding the sum claimed disproportionate and reducing counsel’s fees in part because the instruction of both Leading and Junior Counsel was unnecessary. The mother was ordered to pay 25% of that assessed sum, which covers only costs attributable to the fact finding hearing into the sexual abuse allegations.
Key points
- The father, FAZ, sought costs of £256,667.80 following a fact finding hearing at which none of the three allegations of sexual abuse pursued by the mother was proved.
- In his fact finding judgment of June 2026, quoted in the costs ruling, Mr Justice Poole found the mother, MAZ, had been “inconsistent and/or has exaggerated or distorted evidence”. In the costs ruling he said she had built a case against the father which was “untethered from reality”.
- The judge found MAZ’s conduct in relation to the allegations was unreasonable. He avoided categorising it as reprehensible, and found she had not deliberately concocted the allegations or instructed the child what to say.
- Reasonable and proportionate solicitors’ costs attributable to the sexual abuse allegations were assessed at no more than £40,000, and counsel’s fees at £50,000, giving total costs before VAT and court fees of £90,000.
- MAZ was ordered to pay 25% of the assessed costs, namely £27,109.75, by 4pm on 13 November 2026.
What happened
The parties separated in 2015. Following allegations made against FAZ by their daughter, AZ, in late 2023, all contact between them stopped, and AZ later made allegations of sexual abuse, including in a police interview. In August 2024 FAZ applied to vary the child arrangements order to reinstate his relationship with AZ, and in November 2024 MAZ applied to extinguish contact and sought a section 91(14) order. The allegations were that FAZ had sniffed AZ’s underwear, had got into her bed wearing only boxer shorts and placed his hand on her bottom, and had placed his hand over her genitals. At the outset of the fact finding hearing MAZ withdrew the first allegation, and during the hearing she said she no longer believed the second and third allegations. Mr Justice Poole found none of the allegations proved in a judgment handed down on 9 June 2026.
The findings on conduct
In the fact finding judgment the judge found MAZ had been inconsistent in her evidence, had planted the idea with professionals that FAZ had a propensity to sexually abuse AZ, and had embellished her evidence, conduct he said “trespassed beyond parental protectiveness”. He found she “knew that she was not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” in building her case, though the evidence did not persuade him she had “deliberately concocted the allegations” or instructed AZ what to say.
In the costs ruling he said her conduct in making and pursuing the first allegation was “wholly unreasonable”, and that her conduct in pursuing the second and third allegations “was unreasonable for the reasons given above and in my fact finding judgment”. He said her belief was sincere but unreasonable, and that her stance within the proceedings, including opposition to disclosure, “was unreasonable and prolonged the proceedings”. The argument that her belief was not reasonably held because she had been knowingly inconsistent and had opposed inquiry into AZ’s distress was put by counsel for the father, and the judgment records it as a submission.
The costs decision
Applying principles from Re E (children: costs) and Pringle v Nervo, the judge said costs orders in children’s cases are unusual absent reprehensible behaviour or an unreasonable stance, but found MAZ’s conduct allowed him to consider one. He declined to order her to pay all of the father’s costs, noting that the second and third allegations stemmed from reports made by AZ herself, that MAZ was entitled to be anxious and to act protectively, and that the father’s own past conduct had at times been insensitive and contributed to the breakdown in trust. He also took into account the effect of a costs order on AZ, noting that MAZ “will have a good income and she is not without assets”. On the amount, the judge found the costs claimed disproportionate, found the instruction of Leading Counsel alongside experienced Junior Counsel unnecessary and disproportionate, and summarily assessed reasonable and proportionate costs at £108,439 including VAT and fees, of which MAZ was ordered to pay 25%, namely £27,109.75, by 13 November 2026.
Correction, 24 October 2026: an earlier version said the judge found the mother’s stance on the second and third allegations unreasonable because she had been knowingly inconsistent and had opposed inquiry into AZ’s distress. That was the father’s counsel’s submission, not the judge’s finding; the story now gives the judge’s own reasons. It has been corrected, and the link to the judgment now goes to the official record.