Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Costs order upheld against wife for unnecessarily elongating family proceedings with false allegations
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal, on appeal from a decision of the High Court in family law proceedings ordering the appellant to pay the respondent 60% of the costs of the proceedings, refuses the respondent's appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that: (1) the judge was correct to conclude that the proceedings were elongated unnecessarily as a result of rape and sexual assault allegations by the respondent; (2) the respondent had engaged in conduct that was gross and obvious; (3) the trial judge was entitled to reflect it in the costs order; (4) the increase in costs by 66% related to the entirety of the proceedings and not just the time spent at trial; and (5) the judge's conclusion arose within the margin of appreciation within which a trial judge enjoys.
Family law - appeal of High Court order requiring appellant to pay respondent 60% of costs of proceedings - order made in circumstances where appellant these proceedings but respondent in those had caused proceedings to be significantly elongated - very serious allegations made both before and during marriage - wife appellant - husband respondent - parties married 10 years - three children - appellant made allegations of rape and sexual assault against respondent - trial judge addressed appellant's allegations - respondent had been arrested by Gardaí following appellants complaints - found not guilty in DC - High Court judge did not find appellant's allegations credible - trial judge found allegations to be gross misconduct - appeal on 11 grounds - effectively that judge erred concluding case elongated by allegations - erred in concluding allegations of rape and sexual assault added to costs of case - erred in relying upon incorrect factual assessment - consideration of standard of review - law in relation to costs - considerations of who brought allegations - court considers whether allegations elongated trial by 66% - Court of Appeal ultimately concludes that appeal should be refused - trial judge entitled to conclude proceedings were elongated unnecessarily - entitled to reflect that in costs order - conclusion that allegations increased costs of proceedings relate to entirety of proceedings, not just time spent in trial.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
