The High Court has refused Mr B leave to use three letters discovered in separate proceedings as the basis for an application to reopen a family law case that had already been decided on appeal.
In a judgment delivered on 1 March 2024, Mr Justice Max Barrett said the letters did not add anything significant to what was known when the earlier case was heard. He concluded that there were no special circumstances to justify granting leave, that allowing the letters to be used would cause injustice to Ms A, and that their release was not necessary in the interests of justice.
The underlying dispute concerned whether a divorce in Country Q could be recognised in Ireland. In the earlier proceedings, the Circuit Court had found that Ms A was domiciled in Country Q on 5 July 1996 and that the divorce could be recognised in Ireland. Mr Justice Barrett had affirmed that conclusion after a de novo hearing in the High Court.
The three letters were discovered in separate proceedings in which Ms A was suing, among others, Mr B’s solicitor over mortgage arrangements. One letter, dated 3 July 2006, recorded Ms A’s original solicitor’s understanding that Ms A had never intended to be domiciled in Country Q and had always considered herself domiciled in Ireland.
Mr Justice Barrett said the difference between the original solicitor’s advice and the later position taken by Ms A’s solicitor and counsel had already been known and addressed in the earlier case. Ms A had also given evidence and been cross-examined on the issues Mr B wanted to raise. The judge said the letters would not have made a difference to the outcome.
The application to obtain leave failed. On costs, the judge stated only a preliminary view: that Mr B should pay Ms A’s costs of the application. He said both parties would be heard if they wished to make arguments on that issue, so no final costs order is recorded in this judgment.