Danilov & Wynn (No. 2)

In *Danilov & Wynn (No. 2)*, Baumann J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife for costs against the husband following the husband's unsuccessful attempt to restrain the wife's solicitor from acting in the proceedings. The husband's application to restrain the solicitor was wholly unsuccessful.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate order for costs pursuant to section 117(2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), considering various factors including the financial circumstances of both parties, the conduct of the parties, and the overall merits of the husband's unsuccessful application. The court was required to determine whether the wife should receive a contribution towards her legal costs and, if so, in what amount.

Baumann J reasoned that while neither party was in a strong financial position, and both were unrepresented by legal aid, the husband's application to restrain the wife's solicitor was fundamentally flawed. The court noted that the husband ought to have been aware of the strong principle that litigants are generally entitled to retain the solicitor of their choice. The husband's application was wholly unsuccessful and had not been appealed. While some interaction between the wife's solicitor and the husband had occurred, and the husband had made allegations against the wife's father, these factors did not, in the court's view, justify restraining the solicitor. The court found that the wife's opposition to the application was reasonable, and no offers of settlement were made in relation to this specific issue.

Consequently, the court ordered that the husband pay to the wife a contribution to her costs fixed in the sum of $4,000, to be paid within ninety days of the date of the order.