High Court, in child abduction proceedings under the Hague Convention, makes no order as to costs and refuses to grant the applicant mother the costs of the proceedings, despite having successfully applied for the return of her daughter to Northern Ireland, on the grounds that: there was no sufficiently weighty reason to depart from usual approach in family law proceedings; there were other factors to take into consideration, including the applicant's offer to settle, the respondent's valid reasons for contesting the case and the depleted common pool of resources for the family; and a costs order against the respondent would amount to a sanction.
Applicant mother - respondent father - applicant mother succeeded in applying for return of daughter - from father's home in Ireland to mother's habitual residence in Northern Ireland - applicant benefited from legal aid - respondent retained lawyers privately - applicant made open offer for agreement to have daughter brought back to Northern Ireland but with a stay until child finished school - court ultimately made that order after a contested 1 day hearing - applicant argues it is entitled to costs as costs follow the event - s.169 Legal Services Regulation Act 2019 - respondent argues usual order in family law proceedings is no order as to costs - High Court Practice Direction number 51 - court in exercising its discretion as to whether or not to make an order for costs shall consider an open offer made to the other party - Section 33(2) of the 1995 Civil Legal Aid Act - fact party is legally aided is irrelevant for costs - court ultimately makes no order as to costs - no sufficiently weighty reason to depart from usual rule in family law proceedings - court notes costs order against respondent could amount to a sanction - that it would deplete common pool in family.