Y v Z (Approved)

�������� first, to seek to disparage someone by reference to her or his mental health is to proceed on the premise that fault/shame is somehow at play when it comes to mental ill-health as opposed to any other form of ill health. The court unhesitatingly rejects that premise.

�������� second, even if what Mr Y averred in this regard concerning Ms Z were true (and it is not), mental ill-health or even a delicate temperament on the part of a spouse is a cause for understanding on the part of the other spouse, not abuse by way of averment.

�������� third, the privilege enjoyed by parties in court proceedings is not there to facilitate one party �having a go� at another under the protective cloak of that privilege; when such abuses occur parties may find that their actions are, at the least, eventually reflected in such costs orders as may issue. This is the third time in recent weeks that the court has had to caution against the (ab)use of court privilege in this regard.

6.������ For reasons that are, to put matters at their most charitable, unclear, Mr Y managed in the past to obtain a safety and a protection order against Ms Z.

8.������ As mentioned above, these proceedings started out as an appeal and cross-appeal concerning the financial provision made by the Circuit Court in judicial separation proceedings in which Mr Y was the applicant and Ms Z the respondent. When it came to the financial side of the affairs of Mr Y and Ms Z, the learned Circuit Court judge ordered as follows: