Corley & Petrie (No 2)

Her Honour Judge C. E. Kirton QC considered an application for costs made by the Respondent Mother against the Applicant Father in proceedings concerning parenting orders for their child. The dispute centred on whether circumstances justified making a costs order against the Father and, if so, on what basis (party/party, lawyer/client, or indemnity).

The court was required to determine if there were grounds to award costs against the Father in favour of the Mother. Furthermore, it needed to decide the appropriate basis for any such costs order, considering whether it should be a standard party/party cost order, a more extensive lawyer/client cost order, or an indemnity cost order.

Her Honour found that circumstances did justify making a costs order against the Father. In reaching this decision, the court considered the financial circumstances of both parties, noting the Mother's modest financial position and significant legal debt, contrasted with the Father's unsubstantiated claims of impecuniosity and his departure overseas for work. The court applied the principle that impecuniosity is not a bar to a costs order if otherwise warranted, and found the Father's submissions regarding his financial situation lacked evidentiary support. The court also considered the conduct of the parties, referencing the existence of unfounded allegations. Ultimately, the court ordered that the Father pay the Mother's party/party costs of the proceedings.