In family courts, there are supposed to be no ‘winners or losers’ — so why did a British court order me to pay my ex-husbands £94K legal bill?

Going to court is a daunting and often costly business. That is why, in the case of child custody disputes, parents are encouraged to resolve matters in the best interests of the child.

By Afsana Lachaux

For eight years, I have been fighting to be reunited with my son Louis. This epic legal battle has spanned three countries, Dubai, France and Britain, and has had a profound impact on my emotional and financial health.

In 2011, I found myself locked out of the marital home with our twelve-month old baby. My then husband had changed the locks, and I found myself homeless in Dubai, without any documentation to receive basic services. I was destitute, and at one stage my baby and I ended up in the state-run domestic violence shelter.

We moved from place to place, sleeping on the floor with domestic workers, and living off charitable handouts. Unbeknownst to me, my then husband had obtained a divorce from the Dubai court and was awarded sole custody of Louis. We had married in Britain and were both European (my husband is a French Catholic, and I am British) but the divorce was grounded in Sharia law.

Louis was just three years old when he was taken from me. I was denied any contact with him, and the trauma of this cruel separation left me broken and bereft with grief.

I was advised by the British embassy to leave Dubai due to fears for my safety and so, in April 2014, I returned home to the UK. I had lost everything, but turned to the British courts in the hope that they would give me the fair hearing denied to me in Dubai.

With the help of a compassionate and kind legal team, I started family proceedings to seek the return of Louis and for the non-recognition of the Dubai divorce. I was extremely fortunate in obtaining pro bono help from an eminent QC, and an experienced solicitor and I was supported by Southall Black Sisters, a London-based specialist domestic violence charity.

As well as the proceedings in the British High court, there were parallel cases in France, my ex-husband’s home country, in which he was seeking recognition of the Dubai divorce. In a landmark decision for women’s rights, the French courts found the Dubai divorce was invalid, ‘manifestly discriminatory’ and contravened equality legislation and French public policy.

I successfully campaigned for the British Foreign Office to change their official travel advice for British expats — to warn women that Sharia custody laws could be applied to foreign divorces. 

I naively assumed that a British court would arrive at the same decision as the French one and reject the Dubai divorce as being discriminatory.

However, a google search of Dubai’s personal status laws led a High Court judge to conclude that: 

“The ground for divorce used in this case is virtually identical to our most commonly used one (unreasonable behaviour), and the custody laws are best interests based.”

It is shocking to believe that a British court would enforce a discriminatory ruling of a country renowned for human rights abuses and its cruel treatment of women. Dubai’s family legal system is entirely based on Sharia principles. Sharia laws inherently discriminate against women.

Dubai’s courts have been roundly condemned by the United Nations, human rights groups, and by the French Supreme Court. The guardianship laws mean that women cannot marry without their male guardian’s permission; wives are still required to obey their husbands, as was stated in my divorce; and Dubai law of chastisement permits domestic abuse. Their custody laws are not ‘interest based’ to determine what’s best for the child. Under Dubai’s law, boys are removed from the mother and handed over to the father when they reach eleven years old, and girls when they are thirteen. This practice maintains and reinforces a religious based patriarchal system in which women are nothing more than incubators.

Having concluded that Dubai’s medieval legal system is similar to ours, the judge went a step further and used his discretion and ordered me to pay my ex-husband’s legal expenses.

There is a general rule in legal cases involving children that parents do not pay the other side’s costs. The principle is that parents shouldn’t be punished for trying to have a relationship with their child. Thus, in a family court there are supposed to be no ‘winners or losers,’ just parents trying to the see their children.

One is only made to pay the other side’s costs in exceptional circumstances — for example, reprehensible conduct.

The judge made no such finding in my case. I had not acted ‘unreasonably’ or ‘reprehensibly’ in bringing an application to try to secure a relationship with Louis, or in the way I had conducted my case. There was no basis in law or fact to justify overriding the general principle that ‘no order’ should apply. The Court of Appeal made no specific finding either, just noting that it would not interfere with the High Court’s discretion.

At the time of the High Court case, I was unemployed and caring for my elderly mother. I was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and was struggling with day to-day activities. I hadn’t worked for a decade due to the problems of losing Louis and the breakdown of my marriage. 

My trauma was deep and visible to everyone around me except for the judge. The High Court found that I hadn’t received any financial support from my ex-husband and had been excluded from the family home, starved of funds, and left in a state of near-destitution. But none of this mattered.

A month ago, I received a demand for nearly £94,000 and I now face losing my home and possessions if the bill isn’t paid in full. A debt of this staggering size would gravely harm most people, and my mental health spiralled out of control.

I cannot fathom why the judge made this decision when the law didn’t require him to do so. There were no reasons given in the judgment or during the course of the three-day hearing.

If the general rule is that parents shouldn’t be penalised, then why was I singled out for punishment? I am a mother who lost everything and was struggling to get my life back on track. How is it in my child’s best interest to make me homeless at the age of fifty two?

Vulnerable litigants should not be punished with disproportionate and punitive cost orders. Such measures act as a powerful deterrent and a barrier to justice. A debt of such magnitude can have a ruinous effect on families, deprive children of essential resources and affect their emotional well being.

I’ve paid a high price for seeking justice. I may end up losing my home — a home that I’m fighting hard to keep because one day I know Louis will come and find me.

If this story has touched you, please give any support you can to my crowdfunder: https://uk.gofundme.com/f/help-afsana-fight-unjust-uk-sharia-court-ruling

You can find out more about my case on: https://afsanalachaux.com/or follow me on

Twitter: @afsanalachaux

Instagram: @afsana_lachaux

Facebook: Afsana Lachaux