FAZ v MAZ: Family Court orders mother to pay 25% of father’s costs after sexual abuse allegations

The Family Court has ordered a mother to pay 25% of the father’s assessed legal costs after finding that her unreasonable conduct in pursuing sexual abuse allegations against him contributed to the need for a fact-finding hearing.

In FAZ v MAZ (Costs) [2026] EWFC 301, Mr Justice Poole ordered the mother to pay £27,109.75 towards the father’s costs of proceedings concerning allegations that he had sexually abused their 14-year-old daughter. The allegations were not proved at the fact-finding hearing, and the judge had previously found that the mother had embellished evidence and, on some occasions, been dishonest in her reports to professionals.

The proceedings followed allegations made by the child in late 2023, after which contact with her father ceased. The father applied in August 2024 to vary the existing child arrangements order to restore their relationship. The mother subsequently sought to end all contact and obtain an order restricting further applications by the father during the child’s minority.

At the fact-finding hearing, the mother withdrew one allegation, accepting that the father had been sorting laundry rather than engaging in sexualised behaviour. During the hearing, she also said she no longer believed that two further allegations were accurate. The judge found that none of the allegations had been proved. Work to rebuild the relationship between father and daughter has since begun, with early signs described as promising.

The father sought £256,667.80 in costs. The mother opposed any costs order.

Unreasonable conduct justified a departure from the usual approach

The judge considered the established principle that costs orders are unusual in children proceedings. In Pringle v Nervo [2026] EWCA Civ 266, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that such orders should generally be made only where a party’s conduct has been reprehensible or their position unreasonable. The approach applies to both public and private law children proceedings, including fact-finding hearings, as confirmed in Re E (Children: Costs) [2025] EWCA Civ 183.

Mr Justice Poole distinguished between the mother’s initial concerns, which he considered understandable given what the child had reported, and her subsequent conduct. He did not find that she had deliberately invented the allegations or coached the child. He accepted that she genuinely believed the father had abused their daughter.

However, the judge found that the mother had built a case against the father through exaggeration, embellishment and dishonest reporting to professionals. She continued to characterise his conduct as sexual abuse despite the information available to her, and withdrew her support for the allegations only towards the end of the fact-finding hearing. Her stance, including opposition to disclosure, prolonged the proceedings and caused avoidable costs.

The judge also took account of the father’s past conduct, which had contributed to distrust between the parents. Nevertheless, he considered the father’s conduct after the allegations emerged to have been reasonable, including his attempts to resolve matters outside court.

In deciding the appropriate order, the judge emphasised that parents with reasonable grounds to suspect sexual abuse should not be deterred from raising concerns for fear of a costs penalty. The award reflected the particular findings about the mother’s conduct, rather than simply the failure of the allegations.

Costs reduced to reflect proportionality

Although the judge found that a costs order was justified, he rejected the father’s full claim. The fact-finding hearing concerned three allegations, and the judge considered that the instruction of leading counsel alongside experienced junior counsel had generated disproportionate expense.

The court assessed reasonable and proportionate solicitors’ costs attributable to the allegations at £40,000, excluding VAT and court fees, and counsel’s fees at £50,000. The total assessed costs were £108,439, including VAT and fees.

The mother was ordered to pay 25% of that sum, amounting to £27,109.75, by 4pm on 13 November 2026. The judge considered the effect on the child’s financial support and the need to improve relations between the parents, but concluded that a partial award was justified by the avoidable litigation caused by the mother’s unreasonable conduct.