Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite. was delivered on 6 December 1999 before Deputy Judge Woolley.
Matrimonial causes – costs – variation of maintenance order – full and frank disclosure – injunction – High Court – Deputy Judge Woolley – Respondent unilaterally reduced maintenance without court order – Petitioner applied for variation and secured payments – Respondent claimed assets reduced from $120 million to minus $6 million but failed to make full and frank disclosure – Investigation showed assets were at least $7 million – Whether costs follow the event in variation application – Respondent bears costs due to lack of disclosure and misleading affidavit – Whether costs for injunction application – Costs to Petitioner due to breach of order and sale of property – Whether costs for release of funds – No order as to costs as financial position unclear – Maintenance variation backdated to 1 April 1999 – Costs of Respondent's and Petitioner's applications to the Petitioner – Costs of Petitioner's injunction application to the Petitioner
Legal issues: Costs of variation application · Costs of injunction application · Costs of release of funds application
Outcome: Costs ordered to Petitioner for Respondent's variation application and Petitioner's injunction application. No order as to costs for release of funds application. Maintenance variation backdated to 1 April 1999.