The High Court ordered the applicant in a divorce case to pay €17,000 in measured costs after she lost on two issues: whether the court should hear the child’s views about a possible sale of the family home, and a claim by U.D. arising from a 2006 settlement.
In a costs judgment delivered on 1 June 2016, Mr Justice Henry Abbott directed that €2,000, including VAT, be paid for the child’s voice issue and €15,000, inclusive of VAT, for U.D.’s costs. Both sums are to be paid from the applicant’s share of the net proceeds of the family home, in the manner set out in the earlier judgment.
The court had delivered its main judgment on 22 April 2016. In the later costs hearing, counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent should not bear an undue costs burden given the small percentage of assets he expected to receive. Counsel also submitted that the respondent had not opposed compensation for U.D., and that the applicant had lost the dispute over hearing the child’s views despite warnings during the hearing about possible costs.
Counsel for U.D. argued that U.D. was entitled to costs because the court had upheld the claim under the 2006 settlement. Counsel for the applicant disputed that U.D.’s legal team had indicated it would accept a discounted share.
Justice Abbott said that where assets are divided between parties, the usual approach may be for each to bear their own costs, but particular issues can justify applying the rule that costs follow the event. He found that the applicant had clearly lost on the child’s voice issue and ordered the €2,000 measured sum in the interests of the proper conduct and management of the court’s business.
He also found that the case record did not support the claim that U.D.’s counsel had offered to accept a discount. The judge said the applicant had an opportunity to agree to U.D.’s claim earlier, avoiding the costs of submissions and standby commitments. He ordered her to pay U.D.’s measured costs of €15,000 under the Veola principle.
The judge said an analysis of the percentage distribution of assets alone did not show the full picture, given the respondent’s difficulty keeping up with maintenance payments and the stay granted to him. He clarified that the stay would continue until conditions clearly improved and the respondent had resources to pay maintenance as he had before.