Read the full judgment text of CACV 000387/2007 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 21 May 2008 before Hon Le Pichon JA and Hartmann J.
Civil Appeal – Costs – Ancillary Relief – Exercise of Discretion – Standard of Review – Elgindata Principles – Open Offer – Adjournment – Valuation – Appeal Dismissed – The Court of Appeal heard an appeal from a costs order made by Deputy District Judge Jenkins in ancillary relief proceedings. The parties were married in 1989 and divorced in April 2005. The wife commenced ancillary relief proceedings which were heard over five days in 2005 and 2006. The judge awarded the wife $22 million from assets valued at $42.7 million, including the husband's shareholding in a listed company. A major issue at trial concerned the valuation of the husband's shareholding, leading to a joint valuation by Ernst & Young. The husband subsequently appealed the substantive award, which was reduced to $21,350,000. The judge initially made an order nisi that there be no order as to costs. On 21 June 2007, the wife successfully applied to vary the costs order in her favour. The husband appealed this costs order to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was heard on 21 May 2008, and the judgment was handed down on 28 May 2008. The legal issue concerned whether the judge was plainly wrong in exercising discretion on costs. The court reiterated that interference requires showing the judge was plainly wrong, disregarded principle, or took irrelevant matters into account. The judge's decision was within the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement. The judge considered the open proposals, the necessity of the adjourned hearing, and the valuation costs. The court found the judge was aware of the proposals and the adjournment was within discretion. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Legal issues: Exercise of discretion on costs
Outcome: Appeal dismissed with costs