Freye & Gingko & Anor

In *Freye & Gingko & Anor* [2012] FamCA 942, the Family Court of Australia considered an application for costs made by an intervener and a separate application for indemnity costs against a legal representative. The intervener's oral application for trial costs was dismissed. However, the court made an order for indemnity costs against the legal representative for the intervener, Mr Rozario of Delta Law, concerning the adjournment of an application for costs.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the conduct of Mr Rozario warranted an order for indemnity costs against him personally. Specifically, the court had to determine if Mr Rozario had failed to give proper and reasonable attention to the relevant law in seeking the application for costs, and if costs had been incurred as a result of such failure, thereby justifying an order for costs on an indemnity basis against him.

Bell J reasoned that Mr Rozario's failure to properly attend to the relevant law in seeking the costs application had caused costs to be incurred. This failure was considered a circumstance that justified an order for costs on an indemnity basis against the solicitor personally. The court found that the legal representative's conduct met the threshold for such an order.

Consequently, the court ordered that Mr Rozario personally pay the Applicant's (Ms Freye) costs of and incidental to the adjournment of the application for costs on an indemnity basis. These costs were to be agreed within twenty-four days, or assessed under the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth) in default of agreement.