Colby & Coppola (No. 3)

In the matter of *Colby & Coppola (No. 3)*, Baumann J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the Second and Third Respondents for an order for indemnity costs against the Applicant, Ms Colby. The dispute arose in circumstances where Ms Colby was wholly unsuccessful in contesting the Respondents' application for summary dismissal of her claims against them.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the circumstances warranted an order for indemnity costs in favour of the Respondents, or alternatively, a contribution towards their costs. The court was required to consider various factors under section 117(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), including the financial positions of the parties, whether legal aid was received, the conduct of the parties, and the overall necessity of the proceedings.

Baumann J reasoned that while the Applicant's position against the Respondents was not supported by evidence, the Respondents had shown some reluctance in making full and timely disclosure, which fuelled the Applicant's suspicions. However, the Applicant's failure to discontinue her claims against the Respondents after further discovery, despite being wholly unsuccessful in contesting the summary dismissal application, was a significant factor favouring a costs order. Despite these considerations, the court concluded that the case was not exceptional enough to justify an indemnity costs order.

Consequently, the court ordered that the Applicant, Ms Colby, pay a contribution to the costs of the Second and Third Respondents, fixed at $10,000, to be paid within sixty days of the order.