Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Family Division Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Family Division Decisions >> Pitman v Pitman (Costs) [2020] NIFam 4 (03 February 2020)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/Fam/2020/4.html
Cite as: [2020] NIFam 4
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
|
Neutral Citation No: [2020] NIFam 4
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down (subject to editorial corrections)* |
Ref: OHA11219
Delivered: 03/02/2020 |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
FAMILY DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE MASTER
________
BETWEEN:
RACHEL ELIZABETH PITMAN
Petitioner/Appellant;
and
PHILIP JOHN PITMAN
Respondent.
________
RULING ON COSTS
________
O’HARA J
[1] Master Bell gave a ruling against the petitioner/appellant in his decision delivered in July 2018. I dismissed her appeal on 7 February 2020 on grounds which are essentially identical to his.
[2] I have received helpful submissions from counsel, for which I am grateful, on the issue of costs on the appeal. Those submissions make it unnecessary for me to add further to the costs by convening an oral hearing on the issue.
[3] It is common case that under section 59 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 the court has a discretion as to costs including the power to determine by whom and to what extent the costs are to be paid. The Rules of the Court of Judicature then provide at Order 62 paragraph 3 as follows:
“1. This rule shall have effect subject only to the following provisions of this Order.
2. No party to any proceedings shall be entitled to recover any of the costs of those proceedings from any other party to those proceedings except under an order of the Court.
3. If the Court in the exercise of its discretion sees fit to make any order as to the costs of any proceedings, the court shall order the costs to follow the event, except when it appears to the court that in the circumstances of the case some other order should be made as to the whole or any part of the costs.”
[4] The petitioner/appellant submits that instead of costs following the event (i.e. the loser pays) I should make no order as to costs. I do not see how that would be in any way appropriate in this case. Not only did the petitioner/appellant not succeed in her appeal, she did not win any point which she advanced. The appeal was entirely without merit and was dismissed with the Master’s order and reasoning being affirmed. In the circumstances I order her to pay the costs of the appeal which are to be taxed in default of agreement.