B v R [2002] JRC 27 (29 January 2002)

B v R [2002] JRC 27 (29 January 2002)

The Court, exercising its own discretion, found that the wife did not sufficiently progress negotiations and was reluctant to accept a clean break or the sale of the matrimonial home, and that both parties contributed to the protracted litigation, particularly over the pension valuation. The Greffier Substitute's order for the husband to pay half the wife's costs could not stand; instead, each party should bear its own costs.

Citation
[2002] JRC 27
Parties
Appellant Husband: Mr. R; Respondent Wife: Mrs. R
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
29 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Greffier Substitute's Order for Costs
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs in Ancillary Relief, Divorce, Judicial Separation, Pension Division

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. R

Appellant Husband

Mrs. R

Respondent Wife

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Greffier Substitute's Order for Costs

  1. 1 Whether the Greffier Substitute's order that the husband pay half the wife's taxed costs was correct in law and discretion
  2. 2 Appropriate approach to costs in ancillary relief proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Court, exercising its own discretion, found that the wife did not sufficiently progress negotiations and was reluctant to accept a clean break or the sale of the matrimonial home, and that both parties contributed to the protracted litigation, particularly over the pension valuation. The Greffier Substitute's order for the husband to pay half the wife's costs could not stand; instead, each party should bear its own costs.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Each party to bear its own costs.