Court upholds order against woman to pay 60% of legal costs due to ‘false rape allegations’

The Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court decision requiring a woman to pay the majority of the legal costs of family law proceedings for “significantly elongating” the action by making “very serious false allegations” against her ex-husband.

The High Court had in a judgment published in 2022 ruled that the woman should pay 60 per cent of the costs of the proceedings, in which she had claimed her former spouse raped and sexually abused her before and during their marriage. She also alleged he had ill-treated their three children.

The allegations, which the man denied, did not stand up to scrutiny and there were no child-welfare concerns in relation to the father, the High Court found when ruling on family law proceedings regarding the children’s custody and the financial arrangements following the parent’s divorce.

Mr Justice John Jordan said the woman advanced the allegations “in all probability to paint the former husband in the worst possible light” and “to coerce him to capitulate to her demands in respect of the property, the children and all financial and related matters, or failing that to help secure victory in court”.

Just one family member can throw restrained harmony into disarray

---

Cannes 2024: Stars get shady on the carpet as the Nicolas Cage renaissance rages on with Irish director Lorcan Finnegan

---

Dublin Europa League final defies all prematch expectations

---

Ransom ’79 review: Charlie Bird and the £5m plot to blackmail the Irish government

---

The woman’s allegations had resulted in the man being brought before the District Court where she sought a barring order against him and where he was charged for allegedly breaching a protection order.

While those actions were dismissed, the claims had adversely affected the man’s employment, the High Court noted.

Mr Justice Jordan made the costs ruling to mark the court’s disapproval of the woman’s “gross and obvious misconduct”.

The woman appealed the costs ruling on grounds including that Mr Justice Jordan was overly influenced by his view of the character of the allegations made by the appellant against the respondent and his conclusion that the respondent was entitled to have his reputation vindicated in these proceedings

It was also contended that the judge did not give clear and adequate reasons for his costs rulings.

The appeal was opposed.

In its ruling on Friday, the three judge Court of Appeal, comprising Ms Justice Marie Whelan, Ms Justice Mary Faherty and Mr Justice Donald Binchy, dismissed the woman’s grounds.

Giving the decision, Mr Justice Binchy said the trial judge was correct to conclude that the allegations made by the appellant were in the proceedings because she made them.

Mr Justice Jordan was also correct to conclude that he had to adjudicate upon their veracity in order to address issues concerning the welfare of the couple’s children, he added.

Mr Justice Binchy said the High Court was further entitled to conclude that the proceedings were “elongated unnecessarily as a result of the allegations, and, having found that the appellant made the allegations that she did knowing them to be untrue, for ulterior purposes, that she had engaged in conduct that was gross and obvious”.

Mr Justice Binchy said that the trial judge was entitled to reflect his findings in a cost order.

The conclusions of the High Court were not ones with which the appeal court should interfere.

Mr Justice Binchy added it is his preliminary view that the woman should pay her former husband’s costs of the appeal.

If the woman wishes to oppose that ruling she was given 14 days by the court to make legal submissions to the court on the issue.