Cross and Beaumont

This case concerned an application for costs following property settlement proceedings in the Family Court of Australia. The parties to the original proceedings were Ms Beaumont (the wife and applicant) and Mr Cross (the husband and respondent). The husband's mother, sister, and brother (the interveners) were also joined as parties. The judgment on costs arose from proceedings that concluded with a judgment on 10 May 2006.

The primary legal issues before the court were: (1) whether the husband should be ordered to pay a portion of the wife's costs; (2) whether the wife should be ordered to pay the husband's costs; and (3) whether the interveners should be awarded their costs against the wife. The court was required to consider the conduct of the parties, their financial circumstances, and the overall success of their respective claims in determining the appropriate costs orders, pursuant to section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and relevant Rules of Court.

Watt J determined that the husband's conduct and approach to the proceedings, particularly in relation to the quantum of the property settlement and disclosure issues, were unreasonable and had caused the wife considerable expense. While acknowledging the wife's amended application sought amounts greater than the final order, the court found the husband's position throughout the litigation was significantly further from the eventual outcome. The court also considered the husband's unsuccessful attempts to have costs ordered against the wife's solicitor, finding that pre-action procedures were not applicable at the commencement of the wife's proceedings and that the wife's refusal to engage in mediation was not unreasonable given the power imbalance and lack of financial disclosure. Regarding the interveners, the court found that while they were joined due to the wife's amended application, their involvement was largely as witnesses for the husband, and they had not put forward alternative proposals to resolve the injunctive relief sought by the wife. Consequently, the court found no reason to depart from the general rule that parties bear their own costs in relation to the interveners' claim.

The court ordered that the husband pay 65% of the wife's costs of and incidental to the proceedings from 27 September 2004 to the date of judgment, to be fixed by taxation in default of agreement. The court certified that the proceedings reasonably required the attendance of a solicitor acting as counsel. The applications of the husband and wife for costs against each other were otherwise dismissed, as was the interveners' application for costs against the wife.