Bixby & Bixby

In *Bixby & Bixby*, the wife sought costs against the husband following a property settlement hearing. The wife had been wholly successful in the proceedings, and the husband had rejected a settlement offer made by the wife. The court also addressed issues concerning the inappropriate direct communication of correspondence and affidavits to the trial judge by a party's solicitor.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the wife should be awarded costs against the husband, and if so, on what basis. This involved considering the factors outlined in section 117(2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly in light of the husband's rejection of the wife's settlement offer. A secondary issue concerned whether counsel's fees could be claimed as a disbursement when costs were awarded according to the scale under the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001.

Judge Scarlett found that there was nothing in section 117(2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to prevent any single factor from being the sole foundation for a costs order. The court determined that the husband's refusal of the wife's settlement offer was imprudent and a significant factor in awarding costs. The court also clarified that counsel's fees could be claimed as a disbursement under the relevant rules. Furthermore, the court admonished the solicitor for inappropriately forwarding correspondence and an affidavit directly to the judge, emphasising that such communications should be filed with the Court Registry or presented by leave.

The Husband was ordered to pay the Wife’s costs of the final hearing from and after 23 April 2014, fixed at $8,965.00, and the Wife’s costs of the Application in a Case filed on 30 September 2014, fixed at $2,262.00.