Boomfield & Grainger & Anor (No 2)

In *Boomfield & Grainger & Anor (No 2)*, Hogan J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the First Respondent for an order that the Applicant pay his costs following the dismissal of proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The dismissed proceedings concerned an application to set aside an agreement that, on its face, purported to be a financial agreement under s 90C of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The First Respondent and his wife had relied on this assertion to obtain a stamp duty exemption. Crucially, the First Respondent had admitted in his pleadings that the agreement was a s 90C financial agreement, a position he maintained until the filing of affidavit material, at which point he contended the agreement was not a financial agreement.

The court was required to determine whether the circumstances justified an order for costs in favour of the First Respondent, despite the dismissal of the Applicant's case for want of jurisdiction. Additionally, the Applicant sought leave to use documents produced in the dismissed proceedings in foreshadowed proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Hogan J reasoned that the circumstances did not justify making an order for costs against the Applicant. The court also granted the Applicant leave to use documents obtained in the dismissed proceedings in any future proceedings commenced in the Supreme Court of Queensland, provided those proceedings sought relief available under s 228 of the *Property Law Act 1974* (Qld).

Consequently, the application filed on 8 November 2017 was dismissed. There was no order as to costs for the proceedings commenced by the application filed on 7 January 2014. The Applicant was granted leave to use documents from the earlier proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland as specified. All other extant applications were dismissed.