unanswered questions

I have read that if you go to court you can end up paying your ex's costs. My solicitor says that is not the case anymore, each party pays their own.Can anybody confirm this.
I also may need to borrow money from my mother to pay court costs will that go against me in court? How does that get included in the E form if a parent is paying the bills, ultimatly I would pay her back.
Would my ex have to pay uni fees to my girls, one is 18 the other is 21? He says I should get as much out of student finance for them as I can, not easy as he still has'nt agreed any proposals he has been offered no choice but to take him to court now.
I think he is about to get a mortgage to buy his own house and then claim he cant give me so much as he is also setting up a new business and claims he wont have much to give due to his borrowing costs.
Think the forum is very helpful. xxxxxxxxx to all those people who give advice and kind words when necessary, it helps a lot.

I can answer a couple of your questions.

The costs thing is confusing cos the rules changed in April 2006, so some old info is still around on websites.

If your ancillary relief proceedings began after april 2006 then the general rule is that you pay your own costs.

Before then the costs could be awarded against the party who lost (this was done by comparing offers made during negotiation verses the final outcome at court hearing).

Nothing wrong with your mum paying for your costs. Might be worth writing a little agreement (just couple sentences) between you and sign it so you can show it as a debt in your form E.

Thanks, Charlie. The change makes things easier for judges, but it can be unfair.
In my case, when my wife asked for divorce I went straight up with an offer of 50:50 to agree quickly and move on. This is more than 50:50 earned in the marriage as I brought half of it in with me. Unfortunately, she wants the house and all the assets and in return will let me have the mortgage (seriously). She will almost certainly resist all the way to court. That would have been fine under the old system as I could take my costs from her (no judge will give her everything and 50:50 is the norm now, I believe), but now I'm stuck with my own costs. Grrr...

Just a slight correction JLGsDad!

If you can show that you have been reasonable throughout all this and its the other side who has prolonged things with their stupid and sometimes outlandish requests, then costs can still be awarded against them! Seems to me you have a good case for this, if the outcome is the same or less than your original offer.
Kind Ones
Louise

Dear JLG'sdad

I agree with Louise and welcome to the site, Charlie.

A Court has still the power to award costs if it is judged that one party has behaved unreasonably. This can include making false statements, persistent delay and can also include making demands which are wholly unreasonable.

I think I would speak to your solicitor and get advice about the tactics you should adopt when faced with demands which are wholly unreasonable.

Louise and I are never quite sure why it is that some spouses, usually wives, make demands which are so outrageous that the other party is faced with two ways to be ruined ; either concede them, or contest them, which many people cannot afford to do. Is it just that the claimant is being plain vindictive and the solicitor is just carrying out instructions ? Or has the solicitor egged her on to ask for more than he knows she will get knowing that the result will be a defended case ?

I would be interested to know, JGL'sdad, if you wife is in receipt of legal aid.

Mike

In my case it is the husband....

And yes, if proceedings are obstructed and/or delayed unessasarily without good reason, the Judge can still order costs to be met by other party.

Liago,

You're quite right, of course. The powers could equally be used against a husband who is playing silly beggars and makes no offer which fairly reflects his potential liability.