Atkins & Hunt And Ors

In this matter before Watts J, the wife sought interim property orders, including a substantial payment on account of her legal costs and disbursements, and a contribution towards the costs of a single expert real property valuer. The wife also sought a final property settlement adjustment of 40 per cent of the net assets, alleging the husband had disposed of a significant asset. The husband contended that the wife should receive no further adjustment. While acknowledging the husband's superior financial position, the court determined that making an interim property order was not appropriate and that the matter of costs should be dealt with pursuant to section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The primary legal issues before the court were whether it could make an interim property adjustment, and in relation to costs, whether a "dollar for dollar" order was appropriate, particularly given the uncertainty of future costs. The court considered whether the circumstances justified an interlocutory costs order that was just, and concluded that while a lump sum interlocutory costs order was not justified, a dollar for dollar order was appropriate. The court also addressed the funding of valuations and the wife's ability to engage a forensic accountant.

Watts J reasoned that an interim property adjustment was not warranted in the circumstances, preferring to address property division at the final hearing. Regarding costs, the court found that the uncertainty of future costs did not preclude a dollar for dollar order, as the overriding consideration was whether such an order was just. The court ordered the husband to pay the accounts of the single expert real property valuer. Furthermore, pursuant to section 117 of the *Family Law Act*, the husband was ordered to pay to the wife's lawyers, within seven days of his own legal costs being paid, an equivalent amount to be applied towards the wife's legal costs and expenses. Leave was granted to the wife to make a further application concerning the costs of a forensic accountant. The treatment of these interlocutory costs at the final hearing was reserved for the trial judge.