Chtibi and Chtibi and Ors

In the Family Court of Australia, the application for costs was brought by the second and third respondents against the wife, Ms A Chtibi. The proceedings concerned final property adjustment between the wife and the first respondent, Mr B Chtibi. The second and third respondents were initially joined as parties by the wife, but were subsequently discharged from the proceedings due to the wife's failure to comply with court directions regarding the filing of an amended application that particularised the orders sought against them.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the application for costs by the second and third respondents against the wife. This required the Court to consider the principles governing costs orders under section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the discretion afforded to the Court to make such orders as it considers just, particularly where circumstances justify it. The Court also had to consider the factors outlined in section 117(2A) of the Act, which include the conduct of the parties, whether proceedings were necessitated by a failure to comply with previous orders, and whether any party has been wholly unsuccessful. The Court was also asked to consider the method of calculation of costs, as provided for in Rule 19.18 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth).

The Court reasoned that the wife's failure to comply with multiple court orders, specifically those requiring her to file an amended application with particularity against the second and third respondents, constituted a failure to comply with previous orders. This conduct, coupled with the fact that the second and third respondents were ultimately discharged as parties, provided sufficient justification for an order for costs. The Court noted that while costs are generally borne by each party, section 117(2) allows for orders to be made where circumstances justify it, and that the factors in section 117(2A) are not to be read restrictively. The Court also referred to the principle that costs can be fixed at a specific amount to avoid further expense and delay.

The Court ordered that the wife pay the costs of the second and third respondents in the sum of $5,959.25 within two months. Otherwise, the application for costs was dismissed.