Daymond & Anor and Daymond & Ors (Costs)

The Family Court of Australia considered applications for costs following proceedings that involved claims for property settlement under section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) between a mother and father, and a separate section 79 claim between the aunt and uncle of a third party. The third party, Mr A Daymond, had also brought a claim for equitable relief in the Supreme Court of Queensland, which was transferred to the Family Court and heard alongside the section 79 proceedings due to the common ownership of a company that formed the primary asset in each "pool." Mr Daymond's equitable claim was ultimately unsuccessful.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) governed the costs applications made by the third party's mother and aunt against Mr Daymond, and whether the "proceedings" encompassed all the claims heard together, including Mr Daymond's unsuccessful equitable claim. The Court also considered a separate application for costs by the second applicant (Ms R Daymond) against the second respondent (Mr I Daymond) in relation to Ms Daymond's section 79 claim.

In relation to the costs applications against Mr Daymond, the Court determined that section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) did apply. The Court reasoned that the "matter" before it comprised all three claims – the two section 79 claims and Mr Daymond's equitable claim – which were heard together due to the Court's accrued jurisdiction. This accrued jurisdiction arose because the determination of Mr Daymond's claim was essential to the resolution of the section 79 proceedings. The Court found that the "proceedings under this Act" extended to all claims that formed part of this single justiciable controversy, even those not directly instituted under the Act, citing analogous reasoning from cases concerning the *Workplace Relations Act 1996* (Cth). Despite the mother and aunt being involved in Mr Daymond's claim, the Court found no circumstances justifying a departure from the presumption that each party should bear their own costs, and therefore made no order for costs against Mr Daymond.

Regarding Ms R Daymond's application for costs against Mr I Daymond, the Court found that the evidence did not support a departure from the presumption in section 117(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Consequently, Ms Daymond's application for costs was dismissed. The Court noted that the applications in a case filed by the first applicant and the two applications in a case filed by the second applicant were dismissed.