| Cookie | Duration | Description |
|---|---|---|
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional | 11 months | The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-others | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other. |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance". |
| viewed_cookie_policy | 11 months | The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data. |
![Trends in the court’s approach to costs are always worth keeping up-to-date with, particularly as a litigation lender. In the recent case of Azarmi-Movafagh v Bassiri-Dezfouli [2021] EWCA Civ 1184, Lady Justice King considers the treatment of costs in divorce “needs” cases, ultimately finding that a first instance judge has wide discretion as to the extent of an enhanced lump sum order to a party receiving a needs award, but there is no rule that requires the judge to carry out an analysis by reference to the principles applicable to costs orders.](https://schneiderfs.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Azarmi-Movafagh-400x400.jpeg)
