Atkins and Hunt

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by Ms Atkins (the wife) for legal costs incurred in an interim application. The proceedings were initiated by Mr Hunt (the husband) for property settlement. The wife sought costs on an indemnity basis, arguing that the husband's conduct, including ceasing financial support and his financial position, necessitated the interim application and justified an order for costs against him. The husband sought dismissal of the wife's costs application, contending that the wife was not wholly successful and that the interim nature of the application meant costs should be considered at the final hearing.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the wife's application for costs on an indemnity basis or any other costs order in relation to the interim application. This involved considering the wife's success in the interim application, the husband's conduct, the parties' financial positions, and the general principles governing costs in family law proceedings under section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also had to weigh the husband's submissions that the wife's application was not entirely successful and that the interim nature of the orders meant a final determination of costs was more appropriate at the final hearing.

Justice Ryan noted that the application concerned costs for an interim application, with a final hearing scheduled shortly. The court placed significant weight on the submission that many of the interim orders would be revisited at the final hearing with more comprehensive evidence and cross-examination. Consequently, the court found it more appropriate to defer the determination of costs until the final hearing, allowing all cost issues to be considered in light of the ultimate determination of the substantive proceedings.

The wife's application for costs was adjourned to the final hearing.