BURKETT & NOVACK (No.2)

In *Burkett & Novack (No.2)*, the applicant sought indemnity costs following a property trial. The dispute concerned the division of assets and the respondent's conduct during the proceedings. The matter came before Judge Harland in the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to an order for indemnity costs, given allegations of non-disclosure and a lack of candour on the part of the respondent. The court was required to consider the respondent's conduct in light of the principles governing cost orders in family law matters.

Judge Harland ordered that the costs of and incidental to the proceedings be calculated by the applicant in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Family Law Rules, with any quantum dispute to be determined by a Registrar. The court also made orders for a splittable payment from the respondent's superannuation interest in the Mr Novack Superannuation Fund to the applicant, amounting to $20,000.00, to be implemented within 14 days. Further orders directed both parties to take all necessary steps to wind up Business Pty Ltd within 30 days.