Bonnel & Jephson (No 3)

In the matter of Bonnel & Jephson, the wife challenged the assessment of argument costs on an indemnity basis. The wife contested the argument that she should be liable for the costs due to the absence of fraud, misconduct, or ulterior motives on the part of the applicant. Additionally, she argued that the applicant had acted without legal expertise, as she was self-represented and any application of the law was accidental. The court was required to determine whether the applicant's actions warranted an indemnity assessment of costs and whether the wife's claims had any merit.

The court found that the applicant's pursuit of the second respondent and her corporate entities was deliberate, not accidental, as she held a belief that her husband had an interest in the corporate entities, which was incorrect. The court also found that the wife's belief that the mortgage supporting a loan made to the husband by his mother before the parties' relationship commenced was a complete sham was also incorrect. The court dismissed the wife's claims and ordered her to pay the costs of the second respondent, which was fixed at $85,000. This amount included the costs the wife had agreed to pay and an allowance for the application for summary dismissal and the costs application.

The court allowed the parties an opportunity to negotiate the terms of payment. If the parties were unable to reach an agreement, the court scheduled further submissions for 6 July 2023, when the substantive proceedings would return to the court's list. The court acknowledged the restraint upon the wife arising from the order made on 17 January 2023. The court's decision was clear and definitive, with the wife being ordered to pay the costs of the second respondent.