Henry Gay v Lorraine Gay

JurisdictionBahamas
JudgeSir Michael Barnett, JA
Judgment Date27 February 2019
Neutral CitationBS 2019 CA 19
CourtCourt of Appeal (Bahamas)
Docket NumberSCCivApp. No. 292 of 2016
Date27 February 2019

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Isaacs, JA

The Honourable Madam Justice Crane-Scott, JA

The Honourable Sir Michael Barnett, JA (Actg.)

SCCivApp. No. 292 of 2016

Between
Henry Gay
Appellant
and
Lorraine Gay
Respondent
APPEARANCES

Mr. Brian Dorsette, Counsel for the Appellant

Mr. Philip Davis, QC with Mr. Kendall Carroll and Mr. Dematee Mohan, Counsel for the Respondent

Civil appeal - Costs judgment — Discretion as to the proper order for costs to be exercised judiciously to achieve fairness

Following the parties' divorce a property adjustment order was made by the trial judge. After making that order, the trial judge further ordered the husband/appellant to pay one half of the wife/respondent's legal costs on the property adjustment application. On 15 November 2018 following the husband's appeal to this Court against the property adjustment order all of his challenges were dismissed. On appeal, the husband also challenged the trial judge's order requiring him to pay one half of the wife's costs. The Court agreed with the husband that the judge took into account factors that she ought not to have taken into account as to cause her to depart from the starting point that each party should bear their own costs of the proceedings for ancillary relief. The issue before the Court was, therefore, who should bear the costs of the appeal.

Held: Costs to the respondent, to be taxed if not agreed and the amount of the respondent's taxed costs to be reduced by 20%.

To require each party to bear its own costs of the appeal, as suggested by the husband, does not recognize that he lost on his primary challenges to the property adjustment order. Alternatively, to require the husband to pay the entire costs of the appeal, as argued by the wife, does not recognize that the husband succeeded on the challenge to the costs order made by the trial judge.

Any decision as to the proper order for costs is always entirely in the discretion of the court to be exercised judiciously in order to achieve fairness. Therefore, the Court orders that appellant should pay the respondent's costs, to be taxed if not agreed. The taxed costs should then be reduced by 20% to take into account the appellant's success on the issue of costs in the court below and the wife's abandonment of one of her claim's.

(Costs)

Delivered by the Honourable Sir Michael Barnett, JA (Actg.) :

1

. This is a Ruling on the issue of costs consequent on an appeal.

The background
2

. The parties were divorced after 12 years of marriage. Following the divorce a property adjustment...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT