F. v L. (Orse. F.)

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date01 January 1991
Date01 January 1991
Docket Number[1989 No. 3M]
CourtHigh Court

High Court

[1989 No. 3M]
F. v. L. (Orse. F.)
F.
Petitioner
and
L. (otherwise F.)
Respondent

Cases mentioned in this report:—

Courtney v. Courtney [1923] 2 I.R. 31; (1923) 57 I.L.T.R. 42.

McCarthy v. McCarthy (1935) 70 I.L.T.R. 79.

Husband and wife - Costs - Decree of nullity of marriage sought and obtained by husband - Both parties having separate income - Whether husband should ordered to pay costs of wife - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 (S.I. No. 15), O. 70, r. 75 - Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Law (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict., c. 110), s. 27.

Matrimonial petition

The facts have been summarised in the headnote and are set out in the judgment of Barron J., post.

By petition dated the 19th January, 1989, the petitioner sought a decree that the ceremony of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was null and void. The case was heard, and the decree granted, by the High Court (Barron J.) on the 14th November, 1989. The respondent's application for her costs against the petitioner was adjourned to the 28th November, 1989.

Section 27 of the Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Law (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1870, provides that the court, "on the hearing of any suit, proceeding, or petition under this Act . . . may make such order as to costs as to such court . . . may seem just".

The petitioner sought and was granted a decree of nullity of his marriage, on the grounds of the psychological incapacity of the respondent. At the conclusion of the hearing, the respondent sought an order for her costs against the petitioner on the grounds that a wife should, as a general rule, be awarded her costs whether or not she was the successful party. Both parties had separate incomes and neither would have been able, without hardship, to pay the costs of the other.

Held by Barron J., in refusing the application for costs, 1, that the rule previously applied in matrimonial proceedings, which allowed a wife her costs against her husband in all circumstances, was no longer justified; it was the duty of the court to make such order as to costs as was just in the circumstances of each individual case.

Courtney v. Courtney [1923] 2 I.R. 31 not followed.

2. That, since both parties were in employment but neither could afford to pay the costs of the other, and since the proceedings had declared the status of them both, the proper order would be to require each party to bear his or her own costs.

Cur. adv. vult.

Barron J.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • P.F. v G. O'M. (otherwise G.F.) (Nullity: Consent)
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 28 November 2000
    ...2 HAGG CONS 175 SULLIVAN V SULLIVAN 2 HAGG CONS 238 BISHOP ON MARRIAGE & DIVORCE (1891) (NEW YORK) CONSTITUTION ART 41.3.1 F V L (ORSE F) 1991 1 IR 40 MATRIMONIAL CAUSES & MARRIAGE LAW (IRL) (AMDT) ACT 1870 S27 Synopsis Family Law Grounds of nullity of marriage; respondent had conducted a ......
  • E. L. v S. K
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 18 February 2011
    ...1996 1 IR 95 PROTEA v NEILL 1996 1 IR 100 EUROPEAN FASHION PRODUCTS LTD & MURA v EENKHOORN & ORS UNREP BARR 21.12.2001 2001/9/2343 F v L 1991 1 IR 40 COURTNEY v COURTNEY 1923 2 IR 31 MATRIMONIAL CAUSES & MARRIAGE LAW (IRELAND) ACT 1870 S27 RSC 1986 O.70 r75 WILEY'S JUDICATURE ACT 1900 RS......
  • D v D
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 4 May 2005
    ...no assets of her own. It was thus considered unjust to deprive her of access to the courts simply because of these facts. (See F. v. L. [1991] 1 I.R. 40). Nowadays however as a result of legislative intervention, judicial activity in establishing equality and eliminating discrimination, and......

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