Costs and Calderbank letters

Hi all,
It is my understanding that Calderbank letters were done away with in April 2006. If so could someone explain to me why I have just received one from my spouse's solicitor and is it still possible for the petitioner to recover legal (or at least court)costs. Again could someone explain the current process for reclaiming these costs and the likelihood of success. If both sides are assumed to cover their own costs this seems a bit harsh on the petitioner who has to pay all of the court costs to keep the process moving and who (by definition) is the one with grounds for the divorce.
Thanks,

Pumpkinhead

Possible explanations;

1) proceedings started before 6 April 2006

2) the lawyer is isn't a family law specialist

3) the lawyer has been in a coma for 2 years

4) it's not for ancillary relief

I've sent you a PM!

Well proceedings definitely started post 2006, so I'm under the impression he's just trying to mess around with me. His offer included conditions under which I would I would be penalized 10% of the house equity... if I were to remarry within 5 years of divorce. Two lines later he claimed his offer represented a financial Clean Break. Am I missing something or is this guy an idiot? I can't understand how any judge could seriously consider his proposal, so I'm kind of glad he did it this way, I just don't know if I'm allowed to expose and pick apart his offer, if he's placed a "without prejudice" title on it. Since I'm self-repping does he just "try on" an offer like this knowing a judge never sees it? Or am I able to march this out in front of the judge along with my counter-offer and ask the Judge who is being reasonable....sorry if I'm rambling,
Thanks for the advice this is so much more info than I could have ever dragged out of my former solicitor.

Pumpkinhead

Pumpkinhead,

As Fiona says - if ancillary relief proceedings started after april 6th 2006 then you should be operating under the new costs rules.

Under new rules basically presumption is that each side will pay their own costs unless someone conducts their case in a way which unjustifiably adds cost for the other party (i.e. is very obstructive etc) - most minor misdemeanours - delays etc etc will be overlooked.

So.....Calderbanks are not relevant.... you should be exchanging open offers.

I would therefore say that in effect the letter you have will be deemed an open offer (i.e. the 'without prejudice' will be ignored).

So if you want to produce this in court i would simply take it along. And tell the judge that you have an offer which has 'without prejudice' stated in it but which you believe to be an open offer as calderbanks are no longer valid. The judge will tell you if he will allow it to be presented/discussed/ admitted into evidence.

Sorry, that should be 4 April 2006 (6th is the start of the new tax year)

- not that it will make any difference.

Has something happened to the threads, they read from bottom to top, or is i just me again?

Well spotted Fiona.

You used to actually have the choice (in your profile) to choose oldest first or newest first for thread viewing.

But it caused some probs.

So now it is newest post first by default.

I am sure u will get used to it.

I think its easier.....str8 in at newest post.