F v L

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barron
• Judgment Date: 25 May 1990
• Neutral Citation: 1990 WJSC-HC 1839
• Docket Number: No 3M/1989
• Court: High Court
• Date: 25 May 1990

F v. L

F

.V.

L

1990 WJSC-HC 1839

No 3M/1989

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

PRACTICE

Costs

Wife - Liability - Marriage - Consummation - Absence - Incapacity of wife - Decree of nullity granted on husband's petition - Liability of petitioner to bear respondent's costs of matrimonial proceedings - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, order 70, r. 75 - Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Law (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1870, s. 27 - (1989/3 M - Barron J. - 25/5/90) - [1991] 1 I.R. 40

|F. v. L.|

Citations:

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES AND MARRIAGE LAW (IRL) ACT 1870 S27

COURTNEY V COURTNEY 1923 2 IR 31 @ 41

MCCARTHY V MCCARTHY 70 ILTR 79

RSC 0.70 r75

MARRIED WOMEN'S STATUS ACT 1957

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Barrondelivered the 25th day of May 1990.

2 The parties to these proceedings were married on the 2nd of April 1976. Unfortunately the marriage was never consummated by reason of the psychological incapacity of the Respondent. The Petitioner sought a declaration of nullity of the marriage on this ground. After hearing evidence from both parties and from medical witnesses, the relief sought was granted to the Petitioner. The Respondent nevertheless sought an Order for her costs as against the Petitioner. The sole issue before me is as to the circumstances, if any, in which a Court in matrimonial proceedings should exercise its discretion as to costs differently from the manner in which it would do so in other types of proceedings.

3 The jurisdiction of the Court as to the award of costs in matrimonial proceedings is contained in Section 27 of the Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Law (Ireland) Act 1870. That section is as follows:

"The said Court for Matrimonial Causes and Matters, on the hearing of any suit, proceeding, or petition underthis Act, ... may make such order as to costs as to such Court... may seem just."

4 It is submitted on behalf of the wife that as a general rule she should be given her costs whether or not she was the successful party. Her Counsel referred to a passage in the Judgment of Dodd J. in Courtney.v. Courtney 1923 2 IR 31 at page 41 where he said:

"The law in the Matrimonial Courts still operates in some particulars against the husband. There is a continuing order in this suit for the husband to pay the costs of the wife, and the practice still prevails that a husband who succeeds is yet bound to pay his wife's costs. The matrimonial judges have endeavoured to modify the stringency of this rule, and in...