FARRELL & FARRELL

In *Farrell & Farrell*, Ainslie-Wallace J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application for costs following interlocutory hearings. The dispute concerned the wife's application for an injunction, which was ultimately unsuccessful. The husband sought an order for his costs of the proceedings.

The central legal issue before the court was the exercise of its discretion regarding costs, specifically whether the wife should be ordered to pay the husband's costs of the hearings on 26 October 2010 and 22 December 2010. This required the court to consider the factors enumerated in section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Ainslie-Wallace J reasoned that the wife's application for an injunction had been wholly unsuccessful. In exercising the discretion conferred by section 117(2) of the Act, the court took into account the lack of success of the wife's application, the conduct of the parties in relation to the proceedings, and the overall justice of the case. The court determined that it was appropriate to order the wife to pay the husband's costs of the specific hearings.

Consequently, the court ordered that the wife pay the husband’s costs of the hearings on 26 October 2010 and 22 December 2010. These costs were to be paid within 28 days of the resolution of the property proceedings between the parties, either by settlement or final order, and were to be in an amount to be agreed or assessed.