Hand & Bodilly

In the matter of Hand & Bodilly, the appellant husband challenged a decision made by the Family Court regarding lump sum maintenance and costs. The wife, suffering from a debilitating illness, sought a lump sum maintenance order to modify her home, which the trial judge granted based on a builder’s quotation. The husband argued that the trial judge improperly relied on the quotation, which had been orally revised but not confirmed in writing, and that the trial judge failed to adequately consider the absence of competitive quotes and the wife's inability to be cross-examined. However, the court found that the trial judge's decision was within his discretion, and that the husband had not demonstrated any judicial error.

Regarding costs, the husband argued that the trial judge improperly relied on the wife’s costs notices, which he claimed were not subject to scrutiny and denied him procedural fairness. The husband also asserted that the trial judge did not give proper weight to evidence and failed to provide adequate reasons. The court examined the circumstances under which the trial judge relied on the costs notices and found that there was no judicial error. The husband had not challenged the wife’s evidence about the costs during submissions, and therefore could not successfully argue against the trial judge’s reliance on that evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the husband was ordered to pay the wife’s costs on a party/party basis as agreed or assessed. The court also certified that it was reasonable for the wife to engage senior and junior counsel in the preparation and hearing of the appeal.