DENISON & TILFORD

In *Denison & Tilford*, the applicant wife sought indemnity costs from the respondent husband in relation to a hearing on 17 July 2020. The wife contended that the consent orders made on that date were only achieved because she had "forced the respondent on" to agree to them.

The central legal issue before Wilson J was whether the circumstances warranted a departure from the usual costs rule under section 117(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which generally provides that each party to proceedings under the Act shall bear their own costs. Specifically, the court had to determine if the wife's conduct in allegedly compelling the husband to agree to the consent orders constituted exceptional circumstances justifying an award of indemnity costs.

Wilson J found that the wife's assertion of having "forced" the husband into the consent orders did not meet the threshold for deviating from the standard costs provisions. The court determined that it was not appropriate to depart from the general rule that parties bear their own costs in family law proceedings, implying that the conduct alleged did not amount to the kind of misconduct or unreasonable behaviour that would typically justify an indemnity costs order.

Consequently, the applicant wife's application for indemnity costs of and incidental to the hearing on 17 July 2020 was dismissed.