D.K v P.I.K (Unapproved)

Edwards J.���������������������������������������� ��������������� Neutral Citation Number [2023] IECA 7

             Reliance was� placed on the principle that the starting point is that costs should follow the �event� unless the court considers it appropriate to make a different order.� It was asserted that in this appeal there was a � clear event� and that the wife is entitled to her costs in respect of the hearing of this appeal in all the circumstances and in light of the jurisprudence.

             Reliance was placed on the High Court decision of Simons J. in Student A.B (a Minor) v The Board of Management of a Secondary School [2019] IEHC 453 ,� and the judgment of this court in Chubb European Group SE v The Health Insurance Authority [2020] IECA 183 , where Murray J., citing Clarke J. in Veolia with approval, had observed concerning the different scenarios relevant to a determination of the appropriate allocation of costs:

� 10. As analysed by Clarke J. the first is a case where an �event� can be identified and in which all costs of the case follow that event.� This is the default position even where the party who succeeds on the �event� has not prevailed on every issue in the case or succeeded in every argument it has advanced (see Veolia at para. 2.5 and 2.8 and MD at para. 9).� For these purposes, Clarke J. related success on the event to the securing of a �substantive or procedural entitlement which could not be obtained without the hearing concerned� (Veolia at para. 2.8).�

             Reliance was also placed on the decision in Godsil v Ireland [2015] IESC 103 , (citing Murray J. in Chubb, para. 10) for the proposition that � as a matter of both fairness and of principle, where a party has had to institute legal proceedings in order to obtain relief, the starting point should be that he recovers all the legal costs in securing that benefit ��.