AX v BX (Unapproved) [2023] IECA 109 (05 May 2023)

AX v BX (Unapproved) [2023] IECA 109 (05 May 2023)

Judgment should be published with appropriate redactions; respondent entitled to costs including 85% of reserved costs from DAR motion; special order for interim payment on account of costs is appropriate given history of prolonged adjudication; court declines to measure costs or vary High Court order for proper provision.

Citation
[2023] IECA 109
Parties
Applicant/appellant: A. X.; Respondent: B. X.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Post Appeal Consequential Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Divorce, Costs Adjudication, Publication and Redaction of Judgments, In Camera Rule
Family Law Costs Divorce Costs Adjudication Publication and Redaction of Judgments In Camera Rule

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. X.

Applicant/appellant

B. X.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Post Appeal Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether judgment should be published with redactions to protect privacy
  2. 2 Whether in camera rule should be lifted for disclosure to professional bodies
  3. 3 Appropriate form and quantum of costs order following appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Judgment should be published with appropriate redactions; respondent entitled to costs including 85% of reserved costs from DAR motion; special order for interim payment on account of costs is appropriate given history of prolonged adjudication; court declines to measure costs or vary High Court order for proper provision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment to be published with redactions to protect privacy.
  • Respondent awarded costs of appeal including 85% of reserved costs from DAR motion.