Williams J
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS FAMILY DIVISION CAUSE NO. PAM 177 OF 2013 BETWEEN: AND Appearances: CMS RGS Petitioner Respondent Ms. Vanessa Allard of Brooks & Brooks for the Petitioner Respondent appears in person Before: Hon. Justice Richard Williams Heard: 17 November 20 14,16 January 20 1 5,8 & 9 June 20 1 5 Wife's written submissions: 2 July 2015 Husband's written submissions: 7 July 201 5 Circulation of draft judgment: 4 August 2015 Date of judgment: 10 August 20 15 P Written Submissions on costs: 18 August 201 5 & 3 1 August 201 5 = Date of Ruling on Costs: 4 November 20 1 5 HEADNOTE Matrimonial Causes Law (2005 Revision) - Contested divorce petition by the Wife alleging unreasonable behaviour by the Husband (s. 1 O(l)(b)) - Petition proved - Costs. RULING ON COSTS
On 10 August 2015 I delivered my judgment following a contested petition hearing spread over four days concerning the Petitioner wife, CMS, and the 15 1 104 CMS v RGS Ruling on Costs Page 1 of 5 1 Respondent husband, RGS. I hope that the parties do not feel me discourteous, but for convenience, I will again refer to them as the wife and the husband in this ruling.
In the judgment I found that the wife had proved the pleaded particulars of behaviour required under s.lO(l)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Law (2005 Revision) ("the Law"). I made clear at paragraph 88 of the judgment that the wife had been the successful party and that the general principle was that costs follow the event. At paragraph 89 I then went on to state that if costs could not be agreed I must afford, particularly the husband, an opportunity to make written submissions as to costs.
On 18 August 2015 Ms. Allard, Counsel for the wife, filed written submissions seeking an order in her client's favour for the costs of the proceedings. The husband filed his written submissions on 3 1 August 201 5 submitting that no order as to costs should be made. The Law and Principles to be Applied
The Grand Court has a wide discretion concerning the making of costs orders in matrimonial proceedings. GCR Order 62.4(1) provides that the rule "shall have 21 eSfect unless otherwise provided by any law. " 22 15 1 104 CMS v RGS Ruling on Costs Page 2 of 5 1
In the Court of Appeal decision of Rory Michael McTnggnrt v Mary Elizabeth 2 McTaggart CICA 14 of 2010, handed down on 12 February 2015, helpful 3 guidance was given by the President, Sir John Chadwick, in relation to the proper 4 approach to costs in matrimonial proceedings. 6
At paragraph 5 of the judgment the President set out paragraphs 106-107 of the 7 Court of Appeal's earlier judgment on the appeal of the ancillary relief decision 8 which had been handed down on 29 November 20 1 1, where he stated: "106. Put shortly, the position, here, is that costs in matrimonial proceedings - as in other proceedings - are governed by the Grand Court Rules; and, in particular by GCR Order 62, rule 4, 12 which requires (at sub-rule (3)) that: 'Ifthe court in the exercise of its discretion seesJit 14 to make any order as to the costs of any wt proceedings, the court shall order the costs to follow the event, except where it appears to the i I court that in the circumstances of the case some - - other order should be made as to the whole or any part of the costs.
At paragraph 23 of his ruling the President clearly stated that: " .... Unless and until there is a change to the relevant rule in this jurisdiction, in awarding costs in ancillary relief proceedings courts here should give effict to the provisions of GCR 62.4 - that, generally, a ssuces.sful party to any proceeding should recover from the opposing party the reasonable costs incurred by him in conducting that proceeding and in an economical, expeditious and proper manner . . . . " 151 104 CMS v RGS Ruling on Costs Page 3 of 5 1 Wife's Submissions on Costs 2
The wife rightly submits that she has been successful in proving the Petition and 3 asks that the costs associated with the proving of the petition at a contested ; : ->.. ,, .., , .- L hearing should be borne by the husband. The wife reminds the Court that the sf -,: -. .- ' p b, ,, $9 .;. . .. . l', , . * 5 starting point is that costs follow the event. The wife states that she offered to amend the petition so that the wording was not so controversial, but the proposed . . amendment was not acceptable to the husband. 9 Husband's Submissions on Costs 10
The husband, in his submissions in relation to costs and accompanying email 11 attachments, seeks in some detail to further argue some of the factual issues raised 12 in the Petition and repeat his unfounded criticism of the conduct of the wife's 13 attorne y. 14 15
He contends that he was willing to negotiate an amendment to the petition as long 16 as the terms did not prejudice other proceedings, particularly child proceedings. 17 He contends that, as the wife was not willing to amend the petition in the form 18 that he wished it to be in, it is her fault that there has been a contested hearing. 19 20 Conclusion 21
There is nothing in the submissions as to costs before me or from the 22 circumstances of the case that would lead me to depart from the normal course, 23 namely that costs follow the event. If the parties could not reach an agreement 24 about the form of an amended petition, then the wife was left with no option but 15 1 104 CMS v RGS Ruling on Costs Page 4 of 5 to pursue the Petition. Following a careful consideration of all of the evidence I stated that the wife had satisfied me: "that any right-thinking person would come to the conclusion that the husband has behaved in such a way that she cannot be reasonably expected to live with him, especially when having regard to the impact of his conduct on her. " I then went on to find that I was satisfied that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The wife's Petition as pleaded was proved and therefore she is clearly the successful party. If the Petition had not been proved, then the husband would have been the successful party and likely have been able to obtain an order for legal costs if any had actually been incurred by him. Having regard to GCR Order 62 r.4 and the principles set out herein, I order the husband to pay the wife's costs incurred in preparation for and for the hearing of the contested petition, including on the issue of costs. These costs are to be taxed if not agreed. - Honourable Mr. Justice Richard Williams 23 JUDGE OF THE GRAND COURT 24 151 104 CMS v RGS Ruling on Costs Page 5 of 5