Dobbs & Dobbs (No. 2)

In *Dobbs & Dobbs (No. 2)*, the husband, Mr. Dobbs, sought an order for costs against the wife, Ms. Dobbs, in the sum of $5,175.56. The wife opposed this application. The husband's claim was predicated on the assertion that he had incurred unnecessary costs due to the alleged "action or inaction" of the wife's solicitor. The proceedings originated from the wife's application to enforce final property orders made approximately three years prior.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether there were circumstances justifying a departure from the general rule that parties bear their own costs, as stipulated by section 117(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The husband contended that the wife's solicitor's failure to conduct a title search after consent orders were made for the removal of a caveat had unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings and led to additional costs for the husband, including responding to affidavits and attending court appearances.

Macmillan J considered the husband's submissions and found that they overlooked several relevant factors. The wife's application was fundamentally an enforcement of earlier property orders and was not solely concerned with the caveat. Furthermore, the consent orders regarding the caveat were made on the condition that the husband's elderly mother would have an opportunity to remove it, and the wife's application to join her as a party was still outstanding, meaning the matter would have remained listed regardless of a title search. The Court also noted that the husband's case was directed at the wife's solicitor, yet the costs order was sought against the wife. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the genesis of the wife's application was to give effect to the final property orders, and her actions in seeking to join the husband's mother ultimately led to the caveat's withdrawal.

Consequently, the Court determined that the circumstances of the case did not justify departing from the general rule regarding costs. The husband's application for costs was dismissed.