Field and Kingston (No. 4)

In *Field and Kingston (No. 4)*, the Family Court of Australia considered competing applications for costs made by the applicant wife, Ms Field, and the respondent husband, Mr Kingston. The dispute arose from extensive litigation concerning property settlement and spousal maintenance, which had been ongoing since 2014 and had resulted in exceptionally high legal fees for both parties. The wife sought indemnity costs, or alternatively, party/party costs, while the husband sought indemnity costs from the wife, or alternatively, party/party costs, and the dismissal of the wife's costs applications.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether either party was entitled to an order for indemnity costs or party/party costs, and how the costs of the proceeding should be borne, having regard to the conduct of the parties throughout the litigation. The court was required to consider the provisions of section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which governs costs in family law proceedings, and the various grounds advanced by each party to justify their respective claims for costs.

Wilson J found that both parties had engaged in conduct that contributed to the protracted and costly nature of the litigation. The wife sought to rely on a series of unsuccessful applications and appeals made by the husband, as well as his alleged failures to comply with court orders and his opposition to various applications. The husband, in turn, sought to hold the wife responsible for the costs incurred. However, the court concluded that the conduct of both parties demonstrated a pattern of "bad behaviour" in the litigation, making it inappropriate to award costs in favour of either party on an indemnity or party/party basis.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs of the proceeding pursuant to section 117(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The wife's application for security for costs was also dismissed.