D v D [No. 2] (Approved)

             This is an application for costs following on my decision in the substantive case. In summary, that was a relocation application in which I considered that it was in the best interests of the children to remain in the West at this time (Dad's preferred option) and not to move with Ms D to Dublin at this time (Ms D's preferred option).

             Mr D now comes to court and contends that (i) these are civil proceedings, (ii) what was before me was a binary choice (should the children stay or go?), (iii) he was entirely successful in resisting Ms D's application, and (iv) consistent with s.169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 he is entitled to an award of costs.

             There was dispute as to whether the application was properly to be characterised as binary. I set out in Table 1 five reasons why one might legitimately view the application on which I adjudicated as a binary matter and five reasons why one might legitimately not do so.

Table 1: Whether the Relocation Application Should Legitimately Be Viewed as Binary

The application formally sought permission to relocate or, alternatively, refusal of that permission.