Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC177

royal court

(Samedi Division)

4^th December 2006

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff, sitting alone.

 

Advocate A. D. Robinson for the Representor.

Advocate M. L. Preston for the Respondent.

judgment

the bailiff:

1.        I will adopt in this brief judgment the same abbreviations as were used in the judgment of the Court of the 9^th October 2006.

2.        This is therefore an application for costs, by the wife, of long and tortuous proceedings, leading to the delivery of the Judgment in October 2006, which set aside part of the award made on 9^th July 2003, on the grounds of material non-disclosure of financial information by the husband.

3.        Mr Robinson for the wife applies for the costs on an indemnity basis.  The underlying rationale is first that the Court's displeasure at material non-disclosure of information ought to be underlined.  Secondly, counsel makes the point that the proceedings which took place as long ago as 2003, have been largely rendered nugatory by the failure to provide crucial information as to the value of the husband's business.  

4.        Mr Preston has appeared for the husband.  Counsel's instructions were not to object to the application made by the wife, but not to consent to it either.  The law to be applied in matters of this kind is clear.  The Court's overriding objective is to do justice between the parties and the Court must find some special or unusual feature before an award of costs on an indemnity basis can be made. 

5.        The Court said at paragraph 20 of its Judgment of October 2006:

"The duty to disclose all material facts in ancillary relief proceedings is a high one.  The breakdown of a marriage of some years' duration engenders disappointment, hurt and a sense of failure, as well as other emotions.  The policy of the Court is to try to secure wherever possible a 'clean break' so that the parties may put the failure of their relationship behind them and get on with their lives.  It is inherent in the notion of a 'clean break' that the husband and wife are honest with each other, especially with regard to financial matters.  No break can be clean if suspicion lurks that assets have been hidden or that their value has been understated."

6.        I entirely agree with the counsel for the wife that in circumstances where a material non-disclosure of financial information has taken place and where there has been, furthermore, a failure to provide relevant information since the original Judgment and a tendency to prevaricate, there is no doubt that these are sufficiently unusual features to justify an award of indemnity costs.

7.        I therefore make the order for costs set out in paragraph 18 of the wife's skeleton argument and order the husband to pay the costs of the original suit, the costs incurred by the wife subsequently to enforce the original award and the costs of her application by representation dated 15^th July 2005, together with the costs of this hearing all on an indemnity basis.

Authorities

P-S-v-C 9^th October 2006 (Jersey Unreported) [2006] JRC 139A.