A top family law barrister, Cormac Corrigan, stated that individuals battling in family law disputes could be financially liable if they withhold asset information, make unfounded accusations against ex-partners, and unnecessarily prolong cases. This is in line with established instructions by the high courts that prior and ongoing behaviour can be taken into consideration when determining who is responsible for legal costs in civil cases.
The predetermined rule in civil cases is that the victorious party receives costs, however, Corrigan emphasised that judges may hold discretion in awarding costs for partial or total proceedings. Courts might deviate from this general application for factors such as the fairness of a party’s decision to challenge or persist a particular issue; if the successful party exaggerated their appeal; the making of a court payment; and the specifications and timing of any settlement proposal.
Additional factors can be if a settlement or mediation was suggested by the court, and it observed that one or more parties unreasonably refused to participate. As evidence, Corrigan referenced numerous court verdicts related to cost proceedings. Included within his examples was a 2022 divorce ruling, where High Court judge Mr Justice John Jordan observed that charged legal costs of more than €521,000 constituted approximately 12% of the entire shared assets in the case.
The husband was ordered to contribute €160,000 toward the spouse’s legal costs, pending possible adjudication, because of his continuous and blatant misconduct, causing an extended and costly legal dispute. The man’s persistent deception, exemplified by failing to fully disclose financial information timely, ultimately put the wife’s legal team in a challenging predicament of having to meticulously seek disclosure. Mr Justice John Jordan made a note that a late attempt made by the husband to resolve the case was grossly insufficient.
In a 2022 separate ruling, Mr Justice Max Barrett of the High Court addressed the responsibility of expenses linked to several unique yet connected issues that originated from a woman’s unsuccessful appeal against a Circuit Court family court ruling, which favoured her former spouse regarding finance and custody disputes.
The judge emphasised that family court hearings do not reflect the typical ‘win/lose’ situation found in other court proceedings, and they necessitate a highly serious effort from all parties involved to tackle potentially complex concerns in the strongest and most legal method possible. According to him, the welfare of children must always take precedence when the law requires it.
In his words, “I am sceptical that many litigants depart from the family courts with a sense of ‘victory’,” he stated. “I anticipate that most walk away feeling somehow overwhelmed by the plethora of emotions encountered…”
The judge remarked there was no aspect of the husband’s conduct or the way he dealt with this case that led the court to lean towards ordering him to bear some or all of the woman’s legal charges.
An additional example highlighted was a ruling made by the Court of Appeal during the preceding year which upheld a cost order against a wife who drew out the family proceedings by levelling misconduct allegations against her husband. The court recorded that the woman had not pursued but neither had she retracted, “extremely grave” allegations against her spouse during the trial, while she had continued to level “far less severe” misconduct allegations relating to the children against her husband.
Furthermore, Mr Corrigan delineated the duties enforced by the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 on legal professionals concerning costs. This included offering their clientele a so-called section 150 notice, written in comprehensible language, covering the handling of the matter and the cost of every phase of the process.