Asquith and Simpson

This matter concerned an application for costs made by the mother (Ms Asquith) against the father (Mr Simpson) in the Family Court of Australia. The underlying dispute related to an application for child support filed by the mother on 16 January 2006.

The court was required to determine whether the circumstances warranted a departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event, as stipulated by section 117(1) of the relevant Act, and if so, what order for costs should be made. This involved considering the factors outlined in section 117(2A) of the Act, including the financial circumstances of the parties and their conduct in the proceedings.

Cohen J reasoned that the father was entitled to rely on the legal framework for child support obligations, which required an assessment before liability arose. The court found that the father had not acted inappropriately by seeking advice and waiting for an assessment, particularly as he disputed aspects of the claim which ultimately resulted in a settlement more favourable to him than the mother's initial claim. Furthermore, the father's level of success in the ultimately settled proceedings was considered substantial. The court also noted the absence of any failure to comply with court orders or written offers for consideration.

Given these considerations, the court concluded that the circumstances did not justify departing from the general rule that parties bear their own costs. Accordingly, the application for costs made by the mother was dismissed.