Costigan & Costigan and Ors (No 2)

In *Costigan & Costigan and Ors (No 2)*, Carew J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application for costs following a hearing on 26 July 2017. The dispute concerned the wife's costs associated with the husband's application for a stay and the wife's application for an anti-suit injunction.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of the wife's entitlement to costs, specifically whether the husband should be ordered to pay her costs and the basis upon which those costs should be assessed. The court also had to consider whether it was reasonable for the wife to have engaged legal representation, including senior and junior counsel, for the hearing.

Carew J ordered that the husband pay the wife's costs of the 26 July 2017 hearing and the preparation of material for that hearing on a party and party basis, with any disagreement to be resolved by assessment. The court certified that it was reasonable for the wife to engage legal counsel, including Queen's Counsel and junior counsel, pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth). The question of the wife's costs incidental to the husband's application for a stay and her costs incidental to the anti-suit injunction were reserved for the trial judge. The husband was directed to pay the assessed costs within one month of agreement or assessment.