FAZ v MAZ: The £27,109 Family Court Costs Order—and What It Does Not Mean About Abuse Allegations

What happened in FAZ v MAZ?

The parents had been involved in proceedings about their daughter, AZ. In late 2023 contact between AZ and her father ceased following allegations. The father sought reinstatement of their relationship; the mother applied to prevent further contact and sought a restriction under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989.

A fact-finding hearing considered three alleged incidents of sexual abuse. One allegation was withdrawn at the outset; the mother later stated that she no longer believed the other allegations as initially put. In the substantive decision, FAZ v MAZ [2026] EWFC 131, the allegations were not proved. After the hearing, the father applied for a contribution to his costs. The later costs judgment was delivered on 19 October 2026.

Important: the fact-finding judgment and the costs judgment answer different questions. A finding that an allegation was not proved does not of itself establish deliberate fabrication, and neither decision authorises generalisations about other safeguarding disclosures.

Why was a costs order made?

Costs in private law children proceedings are exceptional in the sense that the usual expectation is not an automatic award to the successful party. The Family Court nonetheless has a discretion to award costs and may take unreasonable conduct into account. The court evaluated how the allegations were advanced, what happened as the evidence developed and which costs were caused by the fact-finding process.

The judge distinguished genuine belief from behaviour. He accepted that the mother genuinely believed the father had abused the child, but found she had been dishonest and had embellished evidence in support of her case. These are serious judicial findings about the conduct of this litigation, not assumptions applicable to a parent who makes a report in good faith.

The earlier court proceedings also raised other allegations which were not subject to the same fact-finding exercise. The judge expressly confined the costs decision to the sexual-abuse allegations and associated hearing, rather than treating every contested issue as already resolved.

How did £256,667 become £27,109?

The father’s claimed costs were £256,667.80. The judge scrutinised whether the work, rates and representation were proportionate. In particular, the simultaneous instruction of leading counsel and experienced junior counsel was considered disproportionate in this case. The assessment attributed £40,000 net to solicitors’ work and £50,000 net to counsel’s work, with the applicable additional amounts resulting in an assessed figure of £108,439.

The judge then ordered payment of 25% of those assessed costs—£27,109.75—rather than the full amount. He considered the ongoing child-arrangements proceedings, the potential effect of a costs order on family dynamics and the injustice of making the mother responsible for all costs of a dispute that extended beyond this fact-finding.

The arithmetic matters. Describing this as a £256,667 award would be wrong; suggesting that the amount followed automatically from the father’s success would also be wrong.

The safeguarding question: what parents should and should not take from this

Parents and professionals must not respond to this case by discouraging appropriate disclosure. Where a child raises an allegation, adults should act safely, preserve the account accurately, follow safeguarding routes and seek specialist assistance where necessary. They should not coach a child, stage an interview, encourage repeated retellings or reframe uncertainty as an established fact.

In a witness statement, distinguish carefully between: (a) what you personally observed; (b) what someone reported to you, using the best available original words; (c) what records show; (d) your concerns or inferences; and (e) a finding actually made by a court. This distinction protects the child and procedural fairness for everyone involved.

For allegations of domestic abuse in child-arrangements proceedings, the court must consider the relevant framework, including Practice Direction 12J. Reporting suspected abuse and pursuing a disputed allegation to judgment are not identical acts, and should not be treated as such.

Practical preparation for litigants in person

1. Record the first disclosure accurately: who heard it, when, in what circumstances and whether there are contemporaneous notes.
2. Keep original documents, emails, recordings and metadata rather than relying only on extracts.
3. Identify the exact allegations the court has directed to be determined; do not assume every assertion is within the factual issues list.
4. Review contrary evidence responsibly and amend a position where justified; explain any change transparently.
5. If costs are sought, distinguish the claimed figure, the attributable work, reasonable proportionality and the discretion to award a contribution.

JSH Law’s Family Court Disclosure and Records Guide and QR v ST analysis examine the evidence and recording problems from different angles.

The wider legal lesson and sources

This decision reinforces an important balance. The court must be able to investigate possible abuse without frightening people into silence. It must also have a fair and disciplined method for deciding whether allegations are proved. Cost consequences attach to what the court actually finds about conduct and proportionality, not to a simplistic tally of who won or lost.

Primary judgments: FAZ v MAZ & Anor (Costs) [2026] EWFC 301 and FAZ v MAZ [2026] EWFC 131. The published judgments contain anonymity conditions; no attempt should be made to identify the child or family.

General information about England and Wales, not case-specific legal advice. Court outcomes depend on evidence, law, procedure and judicial discretion. JSH Law Ltd is not an SRA-authorised solicitors’ firm. It provides non-reserved litigation support and McKenzie Friend assistance, not conduct of litigation or rights of audience as of right.