Jersey Unreported Judgments

2002/127

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

10^th July,  2002.

Cross-applications for costs following the delivery of judgment on the substantive issues on 22nd May 2002 [2002/102].

Advocate M.M.G. Voisin for the Petitioner;

Advocate M.J. O'Connell for the Respondent;

Advocate A.D. Robinson for the First Party Convened;

Advocate K.J. Lawrence for the Second Party Convened

judgment

the bailiff:

1.        This is the judgment of the Court in relation to cross-applications for costs following the delivery of judgment on the substantive issues on 22nd May 2002. delivery of judgment on the substantive issues on 22nd May 2002.  Counsel for the husband and counsel for the trustee both apply for costs against the wife on the standard basis. Counsel for the wife applies for costs against the husband on an indemnity basis.  All sides claim victory and assert that costs should accordingly follow the event.  This is a melancholy sequel to a judgment where the Court had, at paragraph 31, encouraged a more conciliatory attitude on the part of the husband and the wife.

2.        While the ordinary rule that costs should follow the event is an important consideration it must be subordinated, in my judgment, in this type of case to the need to do justice between the parties.  I was told that the costs of the husband amount to some £200,000 while the costs of the wife are estimated at between £100,000 and £140,000, a contribution of £60,000 having been paid voluntarily by the husband in December 2001.  If one assumes that the costs of the trustee are of the same order, the total involved is not less than £500,000.  If I were to order that all the costs be paid by the wife, that would equate to over two years' income under the award pronounced a month ago.  It is regrettable that the husband should be prepared to contemplate such an obvious injustice.

3.        On the other hand, I am conscious of the force of Mr. O'Connell's argument that the legal advisers of the spouse of a wealthy person should not be encouraged to think that costs will always be awarded to their client.  Such an illusion would encourage the taking of weak points and discourage settlement on reasonable terms.  I have considered carefully the correspondence between the parties that has been placed before me. The Court's award seems to me to fall between the final open positions of the two parties but, taking a broad view, closer to the husband's offer than the wife's stance.  Indeed, at the opening of the hearing, the wife's position could be regarded as unduly optimistic. Her claim (taking account of her interests in JH Ltd.) was for £10.5 million.  That was reduced after the first day to £9.8 million.  The value of the award was £6.6 million.

4.        Having considered the matter carefully, I order, in the exercise of my discretion, that the husband pay the costs of the wife other than in relation to the Article 27 summons, on the standard basis.

5.        So far as the trustee's costs are concerned, I accept the argument of Mr. Robinson that the trustee was successful in relation to the Article 27 summons.  The point was however arguable.  I have also to bear in mind that the point was taken, not in a vacuum, but in the context of the wife's claim for a reasonable settlement in the matrimonial proceedings.  The principal beneficiary under the X Settlement is the husband.  In my judgment the justice of the case would be met by leaving the wife to pay her own costs in relation to the Article 27 summons and authorizing the trustee's costs, and those of Advocate Lawrence for the unborn and unascertained beneficiaries, to be met out of the trust fund on an indemnity basis.  I so order.

No Authorities.