Read the full judgment text of FCMC 13708/2018 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 4 September 2020 before Her Honour Judge Sharon D. Melloy.
Costs – Family Proceedings – Discretion – Litigation Conduct – Specific Discovery – Vacating Hearing – Ancillary Relief – Enforcement Stay – FCMC 13708 / 2018 – District Court – Judge Sharon D. Melloy – Petitioner C, JAM – Respondent C, S (nee P) – The Petitioner husband applied for costs regarding a hearing on 13 July 2020 and a summons dated 21 June 2019. The summons required the Petitioner to provide complete monthly statements in respect of UBS accounts and travel records from 1 January 2017. He claimed compliance with the summons by providing UBS account statements and travel records instead of filing an affidavit. The husband attempted to vacate the hearing as it had become largely moot after providing disclosure. The wife sought to introduce new matters unrelated to the original summons, which was refused. The court held that costs lie in discretion and normally follow the event, but presumption is more easily displaced in family proceedings. It is possible for the court to take a number of different issues into account, including the litigation conduct of the parties. The court considered that the hearing on the 13 July 2020 was unnecessary and should have been vacated. It was also inappropriate to seek to use this hearing for another purpose so late in the day. However, prior to that and certainly up until the husband had fully complied with the wife's original summons, there is certainly a case for the wife to either have her costs, or for there to be no order as to costs. The court decided there be no order as to costs up to and including 10 June 2020 as by then it was very clear that the husband had substantively dealt with the wife's summons. Thereafter the wife shall pay the husband's costs arising out of her original summons dated the 21 June 2019 and specifically the costs of and arising out of the hearing on the 13 July 2020. Costs to be agreed and in default of agreement to be taxed on a party and party basis. There shall be certificate for counsel. It is further directed that the husband may not enforce those costs until after the hearing of the party's application for ancillary relief or earlier agreement, or further order of the court. The husband is currently paying for the wife's costs in full. This does not mean however, that the wife can act with impunity. The ruling addresses the narrow issue of who should be responsible for the costs of the 13 July 2020 hearing and whether any other costs orders should be made. The court exercised its discretion to order no order as to costs up to 10 June 2020 and ordered the wife to pay the husband's costs thereafter. The matter was set down for argument with 2 hours reserved following a consent summons dated 14 August 2019. The husband's solicitors wrote seeking to vacate the court hearing on 17 January and 10 June 2020. The wife made a late request to file a further summons returnable on 13 July, which was refused.
Legal issues: Costs liability for hearing and summons
Outcome: No order as to costs up to 10 June 2020; Wife to pay husband's costs arising from original summons and hearing on 13 July 2020.