X v Y (Approved) [2023] IEHC 377 (13 June 2023)

No order as to costs is made, consistent with family law practice and s.169 Legal Services (Regulation) Act 2015, as there is no conduct by applicant warranting departure. Orders for disclosure are limited and applicant must bring separate application for leave to release documents protected by in camera rule.

Citation: [2023] IEHC 377
Parties: Applicant: X; Respondent: Y
Jurisdiction: Ireland
Judgment Date: 13 June 2023
Procedural Posture: Family Law Divorce Application / Post Judgment Orders and Costs
Outcome: no order as to costs; order to issue as per previous judgment with amendments
Legal Topics: Divorce, In Camera Rule, Costs, Disclosure of Documents

Family Law Divorce In Camera Rule Costs Disclosure of Documents

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

Parties

Applicant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Divorce Application / Post Judgment Orders and Costs

Legal Issues

1 whether costs should be awarded in family law proceedings
2 whether orders for disclosure of documents protected by in camera rule should be made
3 whether reciprocal disclosure orders should be made against respondent

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

no order as to costs; order to issue as per previous judgment with amendments

Orders

Order in form referenced in paras. 16 and 17 of Previous Judgment, amended to allow 30 days for compliance instead of 14.
No requirement for applicant to provide comprehensive list of material furnished to Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal if respondent has already been copied.