Baker & Bond (No 2)

Baker & Bond (No 2) involved a dispute between the husband and wife regarding the distribution of their property pool following their divorce. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia, with an appeal subsequently brought before the Full Court. The central issue before the court was whether the wife was entitled to an indemnity costs order due to the husband's failure to comply with a procedural order, the unsuccessful nature of the appeal, and the husband's de minimis complaint about the property settlement.

The court considered the relevant factors under section 117(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which allows the court to take into account various matters when determining costs orders. It was noted that the husband had the financial capacity to meet any costs order, and neither party had been granted legal aid. The wife argued that the husband's failure to comply with a procedural order resulted in unnecessary costs being incurred, and that the appeal was wholly unsuccessful. Additionally, the wife pointed to an offer of compromise that was not accepted, which could have potentially reduced the costs associated with the proceedings.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the husband's failure to comply with a procedural order did not warrant an indemnity costs order, as neither party had been granted legal aid and the husband had the capacity to pay. The court also considered the unsuccessful nature of the appeal and the husband's de minimis complaint, but ultimately determined that these factors did not warrant an indemnity costs order. Instead, the court made an order that the husband pay the wife's costs of the appeal on an assessed basis.

The Full Court dismissed the husband's appeal and made an order that the husband pay the wife's costs of the appeal on an assessed basis.