I welcome everyone to the meeting. I will go through some formal notices. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the place where Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit members to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.

The first item of business is our engagement on Petition No. P00027/25 - Make divorce affordable, with Ms Vanya Uzunova and Ms Wendy O'Hora. Before I start, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction. Before we hear from our witnesses, I propose to publish their opening statement on the committee's website. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On behalf of the committee, I extend a warm welcome to our witnesses, Ms Vanya Uzunova and Ms Wendy O'Hora. Ms Uzunova will read her opening statement, which should last no longer than ten minutes. We will then have questions and comments from members. Each member will have approximately ten minutes, depending on how many members wish to speak. Members may speak more than once. I call Ms Uzunova to make her opening statement.

I thank the Chair and members for the opportunity to address the committee today. This petition arises from a growing and deeply concerning systemic problem, namely the fact that the cost of divorce and family law proceedings in Ireland has become financially devastating for ordinary people. My divorce process has brought me to breaking point, financially and emotionally, and many families across the country are facing the same overwhelming strain. Family law cases often involve vulnerable individuals, including victims of domestic abuse and parents of young children, yet the financial structure of the system places enormous pressure on those least able to bear it.

Contested divorce in Ireland often begins with a relatively contained expectation. Individuals enter the process being told that a contested matter may cost in the region of €10,000 to €20,000. That is the expectation at the outset. The reality can be very different. In prolonged contested proceedings, people can end up with legal bills of €50,000, €60,000, €70,000 or significantly more in some cases. The amounts involved can move into six-figure territory once solicitor fees, counsel fees, expert reports and VAT are included. These figures are not isolated. They are increasingly reported in contested proceedings.

Savings are depleted. Assets are reduced. Loans are taken out and repaid for years after the divorce is finalised. In many cases, once individuals realise the scale of cumulative cost, they abandon proceedings midway because they can no longer afford to continue. In other cases, people delay or avoid initiating divorce proceedings at all because the anticipated financial exposure is simply too great.

In my proceedings to date, cumulative legal and professional costs are approaching €90,000 for approximately four years of litigation. The case remains ongoing in the Circuit Court. We have not progressed to the High Court. The marital asset pool is modest and average in value. It is neither high value nor complex by asset standards. The majority of the cost, approximately 75%, relates to the solicitor fees associated with the duration of the proceedings.

These financial pressures have arisen alongside significant personal trauma and ongoing family distress. The cumulative emotional and financial burden over the past four years has been profound. Through engagement with other individuals navigating contested separation and divorce, it has become clear to me that significant cost escalation is not confined to a single case. Similar experiences have been shared by many people in comparable circumstances. In addition, multiple media reports in Ireland have documented contested family law cases resulting in substantial legal costs, reflecting the broader systemic issues outlined in this petition. The question that arises, therefore, relates to what drives the costs to escalate so dramatically.

The escalation is not accidental; it is structural. The primary drivers are: time-based solicitor billing without enforceable ceilings; section 150 estimates that are not binding; contested litigation and non-co-operation; multiple procedural steps and adjournments; lack of mandatory deadlines; layered professional fees; VAT of 23% charged in respect of legal services; and the absence of structural cost-containment mechanisms. I will address each of these briefly.

In family law proceedings, solicitor fees are time based. Under a time-based billing model of an hourly rate of between €300 and €600, billed incrementally in 15-minute units, even a single 15-minute charge at €300 per hour equates to nearly €100 once VAT is applied. Even brief correspondence, such as reviewing or responding to an email, is commonly recorded as a billable time unit. Over the lifespan of prolonged proceedings, those incremental charges accumulate significantly. As proceedings continue, costs increase. Where there are repeated mentions, correspondence, affidavits, contested disclosure, procedural applications and extended timelines, solicitor time accumulates and so do fees. There is currently no statutory cap, no complexity-based ceilings. Under an hourly billing model without enforceable ceilings, that incremental accumulation can continue without a defined upper limit. The issue is structural. It concerns the design of the current billing framework. Where remuneration increases with duration and there are no structural containment mechanisms, the system, by design, does not reward early resolution or cost efficiency.

Section 150 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 requires solicitors to provide cost estimates. In practice, clients may be advised that a contested case may fall within a projected range, such as €10,000 to €20,000. However, those estimates are not binding ceilings. They may be revised multiple times during the course of proceedings, often reflecting costs that have already accumulated as the case progresses. They are expressed as wide ranges. They do not trigger automatic review mechanisms when costs escalate significantly. Transparency without enforceable limits does not prevent cumulative exposure.

Cost escalation arises primarily in contested proceedings. Where one party does not fully engage - through delayed responses, contested disclosure or procedural disputes - litigation becomes prolonged. Each additional procedural step generates further solicitor time. Under an uncapped time-based model, that directly increases cost. In highly contested divorces, the level of conflict is often at its highest during active litigation. Extended proceedings can intensify disputes rather than resolve them. Where children are involved, prolonged and high conflict proceedings can increase stress within the family environment and delay stability.

The longer proceedings remain unresolved, the longer children may remain exposed to uncertainty and heightened parental conflict. Therefore, duration has both financial and human consequences. Under the current structure, prolonged litigation increases solicitor time and cumulative cost, while simultaneously extending conflict within families. This is another reason that enforceable progression mechanisms and cost containment matter.

Also a factor are procedural steps, adjournments and delays. Family law rules contain indicative deadlines. For example, there is typically a ten-day period in which to enter an appearance after service of a civil bill and a further ten-day period to file a defence. In practice, these timelines are frequently extended and are not accompanied by automatic enforcement consequences. The filing of appearances and defences can take many months before the matter is fully joined. Case progression itself can continue for years. There may be multiple mentions and adjournments during the case progression phase. Each adjournment extends duration and increases solicitor time input.

The process of obtaining a final divorce hearing date can itself add significant delay. A party first needs to obtain a date for the list to fix dates, which can take several months. At that listing, a provisional hearing date may be assigned, which is often described as an at-risk date. Securing that date does not guarantee the case will be reached, particularly in contested matters. If the case is not reached, the parties need to seek another listing date, followed by another waiting period for a confirmed hearing date. When scheduling pressures and seasonal recess periods are considered, securing a final divorce hearing can take many months and, in some instances, approach a year.

During this entire period, proceedings remain active, solicitor time continues to accumulate and costs continue to rise. VAT compounds the burden, with legal services attracting VAT at 23%. Every increase in solicitor or counsel fees is compounded further by taxation. A €50,000 bill becomes €61,500. An €80,000 bill approaches €100,000. For families already under strain, this significantly increases the total financial burden. If family law is regarded as an essential access-to-justice service, it is reasonable to ask whether the application of VAT at the standard rate should be reviewed or whether alternative mechanisms, such as reduced rates or targeted tax relief, could be considered.

There is also the issue of layered professional fees. On top of solicitor fees, contested proceedings involve counsel fees, expert reports, section 32 and section 47 reports, property valuations and other professional assessments. In prolonged contested litigation, professional reports must often be updated repeatedly. For instance, section 32 reports, accountant assessments and property valuations may expire or become out of date as time passes and need to be refreshed, which adds materially to cumulative costs.

When it comes to legal aid, there is a middle-income gap. Legal aid supports those on very low incomes. To qualify, a person's annual disposable income must generally be less than €18,000, with disposable assets required to be below a value of €100,000. This means many middle-income earners remain excluded even when they cannot afford private representation. They do not qualify for assistance, yet they cannot sustain prolonged contested litigation costs that escalate unpredictably. Access to justice should not depend on a capacity for financial endurance.

Where there is domestic abuse, there may be an escalation of complexity. In cases involving domestic abuse or coercive control, prolonged divorce proceedings may run parallel to other legal matters such as protection orders, safety orders, interim applications or criminal proceedings. Each additional layer increases procedural complexity. Increased complexity increases duration, and increased duration increases solicitor time and, therefore, cost. The longer proceedings remain unresolved, the more likely it is that additional issues will emerge.

For individuals experiencing domestic abuse, prolonged litigation is not just a procedural delay; it can mean extended uncertainty, ongoing fear and the emotional strain of remaining legally tied to a harmful situation. Where children are involved, that uncertainty can deepen instability at an already vulnerable time. Protective frameworks may provide immediate safety but long-term autonomy requires the ability to exit the relationship fully and secure legal and financial independence. Where the cost of contested proceedings is unpredictable and potentially overwhelming, the financial pressure often becomes a barrier to exit. Access to justice must include not only protective measures but also financially viable routes to permanent legal resolution.

In its response to this petition, the Department of justice highlighted significant reforms in the area of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, including an increased number of refuge spaces, enhanced judicial training and legislative measures focused on protection and accountability. It also referred to the Family Courts Act 2024, court reorganisation, the encouragement of active case management and the transfer of appropriate cases to the District Court, which may relieve some pressure on the Circuit Court lists. These reforms are welcome. They strengthen protective frameworks and improve court structure. However, they do not address the specific issues raised in this petition, which is concerned with cost escalation in contested family law proceedings. Encouragement of case management is not the same as enforceable progression deadlines. Redistribution of jurisdiction does not alter the time-based financial model under which contested litigation operates. While the reforms are welcome, the structural drivers of cost identified in this petition remain unaddressed.

It is worth noting that alternative remuneration models already exist within the justice system. Under the legal aid system, in family law, solicitors operate within structured and scheduled payment frameworks rather than open-ended private hourly billing. The Minister for justice recently announced plans to introduce a flat-rate payment structure for criminal legal aid in the District Court, reflecting an acknowledgement that payment structures can influence the efficiency of case progression. These developments demonstrate that remuneration models are not fixed or untouchable. The policy question is whether elements of predictability and structural containment might also be examined in the context of contested private family law proceedings.

Contested divorce in Ireland often begins with an expectation of a cost of €10,000 to €20,000. For many, it leads to a total financial liability of many times that amount. The structural drivers of that escalation are identifiable and are embedded in the current framework. Until they are addressed, financial risk in contested divorce will remain open-ended and increasingly complex over time. Possible reforms could include strengthening section 150 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 to require clearer upper cost projections and review triggers, introducing complexity-based cost bands or caps in contested proceedings, requiring judicial approval before exceeding defined thresholds, implementing enforceable procedural timelines, and examining VAT reform or tax relief for family law legal expenses.

The objective is not to penalise legal professionals. It is to introduce predictability and structural safeguards in a system under which financial exposure is currently open-ended. Even if only a proportion of divorces escalate to that level of cost, this does not diminish the seriousness of the issue. A justice system must be structured to protect individuals in the most difficult and contested cases, not only in straightforward ones. Access to justice must be predictable, transparent and financially sustainable. No person should face unlimited financial burden simply to resolve a family dispute.

I thank Ms Uzunova and Ms O'Hora for joining us. Ms Uzunova has outlined clearly how quickly costs can spiral in a divorce case and the variance and level of issues that can arise. It is clear from what we have heard that there is a need for greater clarity and predictability in the system. I now open the floor to members. We will begin with Deputy Buckley.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for attending. As Ms Uzunova neared the end of her statement, I was waiting to hear what solutions she would suggest. To me, those solutions are a no-brainer.

Ms Uzunova touched on the difference between free legal aid and the situation where somebody is paying cash. This is not a competition and I urge her to be relaxed in responding but, to her knowledge, has there ever been any research or survey done to see whether the timeframes differ as between those who receive free legal aid in a divorce case and those who do not? I suspect there is a difference and that people in receipt of free legal aid come in and, bang, it is done and they are out. I take Ms Uzunova's point that there is a money quango in operation.

I was very interested to hear about the VAT issue. It is a very fair proposal to look at tax relief when the whole procedure is gone through. It seems to be the case that a double taxation penalty is being applied.

Ms Uzunova is talking about 20% VAT. That is 20% of the total bill. Her solicitor or barrister, or both, have their VAT paid, but she is paying it.

Yes.

They are not paying it.

That is correct.

That is a win-win for the barristers. Ms Uzunova mentioned bands or caps. The Department would argue that if it is a complex case that involves children and stuff, it cannot predict how long the case will run. Is Ms Uzunova trying to find a place where there is a statutory band on certain cases, if she knows what I mean? If it is a straightforward-----

Yes.

-----and amicable divorce and the couple has no kids, you would suspect that would go through amicably. I saw it with my own parents years ago. At that time, we had punts. It could have been done for IR£700.

There is a do-it-yourself divorce for amicable situations. People are not obliged to have solicitors to represent them. Unfortunately, the issue is with contested divorces. With contested divorces, you cannot do it yourself.

You cannot do it.

It is way too complex.

Ours was kind of messy that way. It could have been done for IR£700, but my dad contested it and it cost over IR£10,000 in the High Court. That was bonkers. That was instead of just biting the bullet, pardon the pun, and saying they could do it for IR£700 and sort out the other stuff afterwards. I see what Ms Uzunova means by contested. When a divorce is contested, it is complicated.

It is complicated.

How do you then set a timeframe for that? I am trying to think what Ms Uzunova is thinking. She would know a lot more about it. She has done far more research than I ever have. I am trying to get answers in order that the committee can come back and look at it because there has to be a legislative change. Every barrister in the country will fight against it if they are going to lose money. They have full control of time.

It is more about solicitors. Barristers are not involved that much. They only step in when there is a hearing. Barristers represent people at hearings. It is the solicitors who do the majority of the work.

They do the stringing out, as we call it.

It is the solicitors' fees, and not the barristers' fees, that are the issue.

Ms Uzunova may not know the answer to the following question. This is not a competition. Is there anywhere else in Europe that has bands or timeframes set out for divorce law? Are there any examples of such places? Is this the first-----

From my knowledge, there are stricter deadlines in the process. For example, we currently have ten days to file an appearance after a civil bill is served. In other countries, the ten-day limit is an enforceable deadline. In Ireland, it is not.

That is very interesting.

The ten days can become months and years.

Even that slight change, to make it mandatory, would speed up the process and cut down on fees and charges.

That is exactly right. It all comes from the process.

I am just pitching here. I will be brief. We could make a legislative change, or an amendment to a certain section of the legislation. Ms Uzunova mentioned the obligatory ten-day timeline. We could change that to a statutory requirement in order that it has to be done.

Yes.

That would be a good win for everyone.

Yes.

I will certainly bring back to my party the point about tax relief on the VAT. Those who are getting battered the most are paying the most. They are being punished by the State in the context of tax and punished by the system through the delays because the law says it is obligatory.

When I saw this petition, I asked, to be honest, why I did not think of this 25 years ago. It makes absolutely perfect sense. I am going to do my own bit of searching to find out if there is a comparison or a link between free legal aid and the time it takes a case to go from A to B, compared with the time it takes where there is no free legal aid. I would be interested to find out.

Like Deputy Buckley, when I was younger, my parents had a difficult marriage. However, there was no divorce. We were in and out of the High Court. The costs back then were colossal. It seems that not only if you contest the case but that if it is a difficult marriage and there is a need to try to work out custody and all of that, the only people who gain are the solicitors. In 1981, when I was ten years of age, court cases cost approximately IR£40,000. It was phenomenal. My heart goes out to Ms Uzunova. I also know what it is like to be caught in a situation that you cannot get out of.

If I heard her correctly, Ms Uzunova said her case has cost nearly €90,000 so far.

Unfortunately, my case is still ongoing. As a result, I will not be able to provide factual information publicly. All I will say is that to date, cumulative costs for counsel, accountants' reports, section 32 reports and solicitor's fees come to €90,000.

What happens if you do not have the €90,000? Do you have to stay married?

I entered the process four years ago with an expectation of a cost of €15,000.

I see that.

That was the reason I initiated the process. I have been asking myself a question. If I knew this process would break me financially to this point, would I have started it? I would probably not and would have stayed in the marriage. I have no way to go back now. I cannot go back. I need to continue.

Ms Uzunova is too far in at this stage.

I am too far in. I need to continue. My option is the same as all others who are in this situation. That is to take out loans and repay them for years after the divorce has been finalised. This is what happens to many people I have talked to. I have talked to others. I am part of groups with people who have gone through this. Many people, men and women, are in very difficult situations. They do not even have the €10,000. Many people-----

What happens to those people? That is what I am getting at. Is it the complexity of the cases that increases the costs or is it the legal system?

It is a big circle. The legal system allows the costs to go up by allowing the process to drag on for years. It is not just about implementing strict deadlines. There are also the multiple adjournments. There could be five, six or seven adjournments of a certain interim order. If a divorce process take three years, many individuals need to go for interim orders, maintenance orders or access orders. Those only delay proceedings even more because you cannot continue with the actual divorce until the interim orders are done. Interim orders could be adjourned multiple times. These adjournments and delays not only accumulate solicitor time and, therefore, costs, they also prolong the process a great deal. There has to be an end. There has to be a rule. Two or three adjournments should be the limit, and there should be no more. Cases can continue forever.

When you enter a legal agreement with a solicitor to sell your property, etc., he or she has to furnish you with the cost involved beforehand.

Yes.

Ms Uzunova was going into this process with an expectation of a cost of €10,000 or €15,000.

Yes.

Was she furnished with details of the costs? Is she allowed to discuss that?

Section 150 of the Legal Services Regulation Act is the contract. That section outlines the projected costs. That was one of the issue outlined in my petition. These costs are not enforceable ceilings. In some cases, the section 150 could be updated multiple times. The contract with your solicitor could be updated multiple times during the divorce proceedings. Many of the people I have talked to had an initial expectation. If it is a straightforward consent divorce, the cost is up to €10,000. This is what people are told. The cost is up to €10,000. If it is contested, the cost is between €10,000 and €20,000.

No solicitor tells you in the beginning it is going to cost you €50,000. That is the issue. I have spoken to many people - I am not talking about my own solicitor or individuals here - and this is the norm. As regards contested and straightforward divorces, for straightforward cases it is up to €10,000, while contested cases cost between €10,000 and €20,000. That is what people were told.

It is not true, though.

A year later, a section 150 contract could be given to the client with an expectation of €30,000. In the following year, an updated section 150 could be given with an expectation of €40,000. You are already there; there is no going back. This is the issue with the section.

Section 150.

That section is not an enforceable protection.

I see in other states, such as the United States, that people can do a DIY divorce. They literally go into a supermarket and buy the papers to do it themselves. As Deputy Buckley said, trying to cap legal fees would not go down well. I am wondering if there is somewhere in the middle where we can meet. Ms Uzunova has spoken to a lot of people. Has she encountered many cases where people simply abandon halfway through because they cannot afford to go on?

I have heard of cases like that, but not many. The individuals are just broken. If someone is at a point in the divorce where they need to take out a loan, not many banks are willing to give a loan to people who are currently going through this. It is very difficult.

I will finish up on this point. It seems the legal system, which is meant to resolve the disputes, actually sustains them.

Yes, it intensifies them. When the litigation is active, the conflict is worse and additional issues arise.

I thank Ms Uzunova.

I will ask a few questions now. One thing I always think about, and I am sure the other members also see it, when we deal with constituents who have gone through this process is the devastating impact it can have on families, children, extended families and, in particular, finances. Marriage is a very complicated legal arrangement to untangle.

I have always wondered about the Irish set-up and how we manage it. In America, it seems to be common practice to have prenuptial agreements, which state that if this partnership falls apart, there is a plan. In Ireland, we do not have prenuptial agreements and, as a result, nobody knows what expectations are in place if and when a marriage becomes no longer viable. Do the witnesses have opinions on whether there is a need for prenuptial agreements in Ireland? Would prenuptial agreements help in terms of having a pre-agreed roadmap people could follow if a marriage collapsed?

In my opinion, this would work for individuals who have already established assets. In the case of a very young couple who have no houses or children and are happily married, I do not know how this would work. They do not know what they are going to build in their lives. If I was to marry now, I would definitely enter into an agreement like that, because I have already been through all of this and I have some established assets. However, I am not sure this would work for all families.

Ms Uzunova feels that for young people starting out, a prenuptial agreement might be useless because they have not established anything they are going to lose-----

Exactly.

-----whereas it would be better for people who have established assets.

I appreciate Ms O'Hora also being here, and I would love to hear her thoughts and opinions on the topic as a whole. We are talking here about making divorce more affordable. Is there anything that can be done to better mitigate costs or to ensure that when people sign up to an agreement with their solicitor, there are expectations as regards costs? I ask Ms O'Hora for her thoughts on that.

I am not an expert but I have listened to much of Ms Uzunova's submission and spoken to her about it, and I have some personal experience and have spoken to other women I know. A regards having some expectation of cost, people have some understanding of the level of complexity involved when they start talking to a solicitor initially about a divorce. There can be a lot of assets and the divorce may be highly contentious, or whatever. Those section 150 contracts could be a little more defined. Maybe they have to be challenged in some way. I do not know what that is from the legal perspective, but if people had a realistic expectation upfront, they would at least know where they stand.

I definitely know people who got themselves into serious debt. They did not necessarily start out expecting that in the legal process. As it is a marriage, it is emotional and there are children involved, people just need to get through it in order to move on with their lives. People are left in limbo.

There is also the sunk cost idea, in that once you have spent €20,000, then you had better spend €40,000 because you have got this far, and then you had better spend €60,000. People do not want to end up nowhere and you go down the rabbit hole then.

Ms Uzunova mentioned the flat rate structure for criminal legal aid. Can she explain how something like that might help families going through divorce and separations, and how it could be applied in this case?

I would not say there has to be one flat rate for all divorces. I appreciate more complex cases naturally take more time and money, but there could be three, four or five bands, ranging from less complicated to more complicated, for example, there are properties, children or there may be domestic violence involved, and there would be different bands or caps for this. I am not suggesting a flat rate in general, but a ceiling. If the cost escalates to the point where it is going to exceed the ceiling, it would be fair for that case to be reviewed by a judge to understand why it has taken so long and why it is costing so much. A judicial approval would then be required to extend that and increase the cost.

The one thing I am taking from today is that the point at which cost significantly increases is where legal teams get involved because it then becomes their side versus the other person's side. Are there any services available for mediation between couples before the legalities of the divorce are finalised? Obviously, once the solicitors get involved, it can get contentious, with point-scoring and nitpicking. Is there much to be said for a mediation process before solicitors get involved to try to find common ground?

Yes, mediation is very important and many people go to it. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. Even solicitors initially advise clients they should go to mediation. Unfortunately, mediation rarely works in highly contested divorces. The truth is that mediation does not work for high-conflict situations.

I have no further questions at present. I appreciate the witnesses' contributions. Does Deputy Maxwell wish to comment?

No, the Leas-Chathaoirleach asked the couple of questions I had.

I thank Ms Uzunova and Ms O'Hora for coming in to speak with us today. This discussion has been very beneficial and informative for members. For the wider public watching at home, it will also have been very informative because this is an issue people do not talk about enough. That may be the reason it is not being tackled. It is something people maybe do not want to talk about publicly. They do not want to engage with the fact that so many people who we represent are going through this, quietly putting themselves in debt and compounding costs, as Ms Uzunova mentioned. This is a very important conversation.

We will now suspend for five minutes to allow the witnesses to leave.