BAGHERI & GOUDARZI

In proceedings before Loughnan J of the Family Court of Australia, the father sought costs arising from parenting proceedings. The dispute concerned the mother's conduct during the proceedings, which the father alleged caused him to incur costs beyond those ordinarily expected. Specifically, the mother had introduced evidence on the first day of a previous trial that could not be fairly met by the father, leading to an adjournment. Furthermore, on the first day of a subsequent hearing, the mother indicated she would rely on a previous affidavit rather than her most recently filed trial affidavit. The father sought his costs to be assessed pursuant to rule 19.18 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

The court was required to determine whether the mother's conduct warranted a costs order against her on a party and party basis, and whether she should reimburse the father for half the cost of a single expert, considering rule 15.47 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) and section 117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Additionally, the court had to consider the mother's oral application for recusal of the judge due to alleged bias, applying the principles established in *Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy* (2000) 205 CLR 337 and other relevant case law.

Loughnan J reasoned that the mother's conduct in introducing late evidence and altering her reliance on affidavits had indeed caused the father to incur additional costs. The court found no basis for the mother's application for recusal, concluding that a fair-minded lay observer would not reasonably apprehend that the court might not bring an impartial mind to the determination of the costs proceedings. The usual order for the equal payment of a single expert's fees was applied.

Consequently, the mother was ordered to pay the father's costs in the sum of $44,756.23 within 21 days, and to reimburse the father for half the cost of the single expert.