Dowling and Dowling (No 2)

In *Dowling & Dowling (No 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by a third party, C Pty Ltd, for costs against the applicant husband, Mr Dowling. The dispute arose from interim proceedings where the husband had sought to challenge established legal authorities, a position that was ultimately unsuccessful.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the circumstances warranted a departure from the general rule that each party bears their own costs, as stipulated by section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine if the husband's conduct in pursuing his argument, despite being bound by existing Full Court authorities, justified an order for the third party's costs.

Justice Cronin applied the doctrine of *stare decisis*, acknowledging that he was bound by established Full Court precedents. While the husband's argument was described as "enticing" and potentially raising a "controversial issue," the court found that the argument, though perhaps a "tantalising but wasted" portion of the court's time, did not result in costs being "effectively thrown away." The court noted that other substantive orders, including property valuations and discovery between the husband and the third party, were made on the same day, indicating that the proceedings were not entirely unproductive.

Consequently, the court dismissed the third party's application for costs against the husband.