Farrand & Mahdi (No. 2)

In *Farrand & Mahdi (No. 2)*, the proceedings concerned a costs application brought by the father, Mr. Mahdi, against the maternal grandmother, Ms. Farrand. Mr. Mahdi sought an order that Ms. Farrand pay his costs on an indemnity basis, while Ms. Farrand opposed any costs order and sought an adjournment of the costs application until after the determination of her appeal against the substantive orders. The matter was heard by Carew J in chambers.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the maternal grandmother's application to adjourn the costs application, and whether to order the maternal grandmother to pay the father's costs, and if so, on what basis. The court was required to consider the purpose of costs orders, the discretion vested in the court under section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and the factors relevant to the exercise of that discretion, including the conduct of the parties and whether a party had been wholly unsuccessful.

Carew J dismissed the application for adjournment, reasoning that as the matter was heard in chambers and written submissions had already been filed, an adjournment would not result in cost savings. The court noted that the maternal grandmother's concern about paying costs before her appeal was determined could be addressed by stipulating a payment date after the appeal. The court clarified that costs orders are compensatory, not punitive, and rejected the submission that determining the costs application would undermine public confidence. Regarding the costs order itself, the court found no exceptional circumstances to warrant an indemnity basis for costs, but determined that circumstances justified the maternal grandmother contributing to the father's legal costs.

The court ordered that Ms. Farrand contribute to the legal costs and outlays incurred by Mr. Mahdi in the sum of $50,000, payable within 30 days of the determination of the appeal. All other outstanding applications were dismissed.