Bradley v Irvine; Irvine v Irvine (No 2)

In Bradley v Irvine; Irvine v Irvine (No 2), the Court considered the issue of costs in two related family provision proceedings. The first case involved a claim by Bradley against Irvine, while the second was a claim by Irvine against Bradley. Both proceedings were heard together, with the plaintiffs in the first case being unsuccessful and the plaintiff in the second case being successful. Several offers of compromise were served to the unsuccessful plaintiffs prior to the hearing, which were ultimately rejected.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the unsuccessful plaintiffs should be ordered to pay the successful plaintiff's costs in whole or in part. The Court acknowledged that the onus was on the unsuccessful plaintiffs to persuade it that the overall justice of the case required the exercise of its discretion to "otherwise order" in terms of costs. The Court considered the circumstances of the case, including the unsuccessful plaintiffs' rejection of the offers of compromise, in determining whether an order for costs should be made.

The Court held that there was no question of principle in ordering the unsuccessful plaintiffs to pay the successful plaintiff's costs in part. It found that the unsuccessful plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the overall justice of the case required the Court to exercise its discretion to order costs otherwise. The Court exercised its discretion and made an order for the unsuccessful plaintiffs to pay the successful plaintiff's costs in part. The Court did not consider it appropriate to order the unsuccessful plaintiffs to pay the successful plaintiff's costs in full, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the unsuccessful plaintiffs' rejection of the offers of compromise.

In conclusion, the Court made an order that the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the first case, Bradley v Irvine, were to pay the successful plaintiff in the second case, Irvine v Irvine, costs of the proceedings in part. The Court found that the unsuccessful plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the overall justice of the case required the exercise of its discretion to order costs otherwise. The Court considered the circumstances of the case, including the unsuccessful plaintiffs' rejection of the offers of compromise, in determining the appropriate order for costs.