B v B

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Max Barrett
• Judgment Date: 10 November 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] IEHC 622
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2020 No. 55 CAF]

Between:

B

Applicant

and

B (2)

Respondent

[2022] IEHC 622

[2020 No. 55 CAF]

THE HIGH COURT

Family law proceedings – Maintenance – Costs – Applicant seeking costs – Whether costs should follow the event

Facts: The High Court (Barrett J), gave judgment in December 2021 when he treated with financial matters only. The respondent sought a variation of his maintenance in the Circuit Court. His principal concern was the amount of monthly maintenance that he had to pay, and he succeeded on the monthly maintenance point, getting the largest reduction in maintenance (50 per cent) that Barrett J had ever had to order. He lost to some extent in that Barrett J had left extant the Circuit Court judge’s order as to the treatment of the end-of year payment. In June 2022 Barrett J dealt with a related custody matter and an application by the applicant to bring the children of the parties’ former marriage on holiday to a distant, non-European Union jurisdiction. The respondent indicated that he was satisfied for the children to be brought on holiday anywhere within the European Union but not to the proposed holiday destination. Barrett J adopted the approach urged on him by the respondent, indicating that the applicant could bring the children on holiday to any European Union jurisdiction but that Barrett J would not agree to their being brought to the distant, non-European Union destination. The question arose as to whether costs should be ordered and, if so, against whom. The applicant contended that the respondent should pay her costs. The respondent maintained that if this was a family law case in which costs fell to be awarded they could only go to him. Yet notwithstanding this, he contended that the most appropriate order in the family law proceedings was the typical arrangement that arises in family law proceedings whereby the different sides bear their own costs.

Held by Barrett J that he accepted the respondent’s contention. Barrett J found that there had been nothing in the respondent’s behaviour or in the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted, nor was there any other factor presenting, that would incline Barrett J to order that the respondent should pay some or all of the applicant’s costs. Barrett J accepted that the applicant may encounter some difficulty in meeting all of the legal costs that she had incurred in what had been fraught proceedings, and she had Barrett J’s genuine sympathy if this was so. However, Barrett J held that this sense of sympathy did not offer a sound legal basis on which to order that some or all of her legal costs should be paid by her ex-husband.

Barrett J made no order as to costs.

No order as to costs.

Summary

This is a judgment on how to award costs in particular family law proceedings. Ms B contended that Mr B should pay her costs. Mr B contended that there should be no order as to costs but that if there were to be such an order it should be made in his favour. I have decided to make no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 10th November 2022 .

1 . I initially gave judgment in this matter in December of last year when I treated with financial matters only. Last June I had to deal with a related custody matter and an application by Ms B to bring the children of the parties' former marriage on holiday to a distant, non-European Union jurisdiction. The question now arises whether costs should be ordered and, if so, against whom.

2 . When it comes to where costs would lie, were costs to be ordered pursuant to my judgment of last December, the question as to who would pay costs in that circumstance, is easily answered. As I stated in my judgment, at para.12:

“ The court's abiding sense, having regard to all the evidence before it, is that, when it came to making proper provision, the Circuit Court essentially and substantially got matters right, not least in the distribution of the properties. The only point where the court respectfully departs from the view of the learned Circuit Court judge is that it is now apparent that the monthly maintenance payable by Mr B to Ms B has been set at a level that is financially unsustainable for Mr B (who is presently having to borrow to meet it). The court will therefore reduce the amount of monthly spousal maintenance from €1,500 per month to €750 per month. Otherwise the court will leave the order of the Circuit Court unchanged, save that the reference to a bonus may require to be amended so that reference is made instead to the net dividend payment (if any) received by Mr B from his professional services firm in any one year; however, notwithstanding any change in terminology it is quite clear what the learned Circuit Court judge has in mind in this regard and, for the avoidance of doubt, I respectfully agree with what he determined in this regard.”

...