W v O [2005] JRC 017A (14 February 2005)

W v O [2005] JRC 017A (14 February 2005)

No costs order is made as awarding costs would be an unreasonable burden for either party, and the merits were balanced; the husband's partial failure to disclose did not justify a costs order given the overall irrelevance of the French property and his success in the substantive application.

Citation
[2005] JRC 017A
Parties
Applicant: Father; Respondent: Mother
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
14 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Child Maintenance Reduction Application / Costs Ruling After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
No order as to costs
Legal Topics
Child Maintenance, Costs Orders, Disclosure Obligations
Family Law Child Maintenance Costs Orders Disclosure Obligations

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

Applicant

Mother

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Maintenance Reduction Application / Costs Ruling After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded in child maintenance cases
  2. 2 Whether husband's failure to disclose justifies a costs order
  3. 3 Whether husband's success in reducing maintenance entitles him to costs

Ratio Decidendi

No costs order is made as awarding costs would be an unreasonable burden for either party, and the merits were balanced; the husband's partial failure to disclose did not justify a costs order given the overall irrelevance of the French property and his success in the substantive application.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs