Dewell and Harris & Anor

In *Dewell and Harris & Anor*, Rees J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application to vary a previous property settlement order and applications for costs. The primary dispute concerned whether certain assets should have been included in the property division as originally ordered, with a significant passage of time having elapsed since the initial judgment. The wife also sought costs against the husband, alleging non-disclosure and misleading conduct, and reimbursement for the costs of single experts. The second respondent, the husband's father, sought costs against the wife on an indemnity basis.

The court was required to determine whether to exercise its slip rule jurisdiction to correct an alleged error in the original property orders, given the delay. It also had to consider the wife's entitlement to costs against the husband, specifically whether the husband's conduct warranted a costs order and, if so, on what basis. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the wife's application for reimbursement of single expert costs and the husband's father's application for indemnity costs against the wife.

Rees J found that the error in the original property orders was apparent from the reasons given and that it was clearly the intention of the court that certain assets not be included in the property division. Consequently, the court adjusted the balance sheet and the amount payable between the parties. Regarding costs, the court found that the husband's failure to make full and frank disclosure and his misleading conduct had caused the wife to incur additional costs, justifying an order for costs to compensate her. However, the facts did not support an order for indemnity costs, and the husband was ordered to pay $100,000 on account of the wife's costs. The application for reimbursement of single expert costs was dismissed, as the husband's conduct did not detract from the necessity of engaging single experts. The application for costs by the second respondent (the husband's father) was also dismissed, as a costs order in his favour was deemed inappropriate, notwithstanding the wife's lack of success in her applications against him, given the husband and father acted together in dealings to conceal evidence.