C.Q. v N.Q.

CourtHigh Court
JudgeMr. Justice Henry Abbott
Judgment Date01 June 2016
Neutral Citation[2016] IEHC 492
Docket Number[RECORD NO. 2013/50M]
Date01 June 2016

[2016] IEHC 492


Abbott J.

[RECORD NO. 2013/50M]



Family – Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996 – Costs – Distribution of assets – Disposal of family home – Net proceeds from the sale – Issue of child voice – Costs should follow events – Stay on maintenance payment

Facts: Following the judgment in the present case, an issue arose regarding the costs. The respondent contended that the respondent could not bear the burden of costs as the respondent already had a small percentage of assets distributed to him in the judgement. The respondent contended that the applicant had lost in the issue that pertained to the voice of the child and the risk of costs to the applicant if the applicant lost the case relating to the disposal of family home.

Mr. Justice Henry Abbott held that the applicant would pay a measured sum of costs in respect to the loss on the issue of the voice of the child. The Court observed that the principle in the judgement of D v D [2015] IESC 16 that costs should follow event should be applied in the present case rather than considering a percentage of distribution of assets where both the parties pay the costs. The Court found that the respondent was granted stay in respect to maintenance payment wherein the respondent was granted time until the conditions improved and had means to pay the maintenance.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Henry Abbott delivered on the 1st day of June, 2016.

This judgment deals with the issue of costs following judgment in the above delivered on the 22nd day of April, 2016 as follows. The submission of counsel for the respondent was that as the respondent could only look forward to an unusually small percentage of the assets distributed to him in the provision in the judgment, he should not have this imbalance exacerbated by having to bear an undue burden in costs. This would be especially so if the family home is to be disposed within the incentivised framework provided for in the judgment whereby the applicant could look forward to another €75,000 from the top of the net proceeds of sale.


Specifically, she submitted that the respondent should not have to bear the costs of U.D. as he never opposed the question of U.D. being compensated in the manner described in the judgment. Also, she submitted that a considerable amount of time was lost in dealing with issues surrounding the voice of the child in relation to the disposal of the family home, an issue in respect of which the applicant had clearly lost in the face of warnings by the court during the course of the hearing that there was a risk of costs if the issue were decided against her.


Counsel for U.D. submitted that U.D. was entitled to his costs, as...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT