The Court of Appeal has ordered A.X. to pay B.X. €45,906.06 on account of her appeal costs, pending adjudication of those costs. The interim payment is due within 28 days of the ruling, subject to undertakings from B.X.’s solicitor concerning repayment of any overpayment and prompt pursuit of adjudication.
The ruling, delivered on 5 May 2023 by Mr Justice Woulfe with the agreement of Justices Collins and Binchy, addresses issues arising after the court dismissed A.X.’s appeal in October 2022 and affirmed the High Court’s ancillary orders following a divorce decree. The earlier appeal outcome was not reconsidered in this judgment.
The court also ordered that B.X.’s costs include 85% of costs reserved in relation to A.X.’s application to obtain transcripts from the High Court proceedings. The Court of Appeal had allowed A.X. to obtain transcripts for a limited part of two hearing days, rather than the 14 days sought.
B.X. had asked the court to make a special costs order, citing the prolonged costs adjudication process in earlier judicial separation proceedings. She alleged that A.X. had used that process to oppress her and delay recovery of costs. A.X. denied those allegations and disputed the court’s power to measure costs or order an interim payment. The judgment records the parties’ submissions; it does not make a finding that A.X. had abused the adjudication process.
The court declined to add a lump sum for costs to the High Court’s proper-provision order and did not measure B.X.’s costs, which would have removed A.X.’s right to have them adjudicated under the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. Instead, it ordered an interim payment, citing the lengthy history of the earlier costs process and the Court of Appeal’s inherent jurisdiction to make such an order.
B.X.’s solicitors had set out appeal costs of €88,247.58, including VAT. The court selected €45,906.06, comprising 50% of professional fees and 75% of outlay. It did not decide whether the 2015 Act prevents courts from making measured costs orders, saying that question did not need to be considered in this case.
The court directed publication of the principal judgment with redactions to prevent identification of the parties. It also addressed B.X.’s request to disclose the judgment to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and professional indemnity insurers, referring that issue to a separate judgment by Justice Collins.