Garrett and Cowell

The Family Court of Australia considered applications for costs made by both Ms Garrett ("the wife") and Mr Cowell ("the husband") following protracted property settlement and related proceedings. The dispute originated with the wife's application for final orders in August 2006 and concluded with the husband's discontinuance of his application for review in June 2011. The proceedings also involved parallel litigation in the District Court of City B, Country C.

The court was required to determine whether the circumstances justified making a costs order, and if so, on what basis. Specifically, the wife sought costs on an indemnity basis, alleging her costs were increased by the husband's failure to provide disclosure and comply with court orders. The husband sought a portion of his own costs. The court also considered applications for costs relating to various interlocutory applications and hearings, including those concerning the husband's review application, applications for stays, and the wife's applications for disclosure and other relief.

In its reasoning, the court applied the principles under section 117(2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to assess the justification for costs orders. It noted that neither party had been wholly or substantially successful in the substantive proceedings. Despite the wife's claims regarding increased costs due to the husband's conduct, and the fact that some of her costs related to proceedings outside the *Family Law Act 1975*, the court found that the circumstances justified making a costs order in her favour. The court also dismissed the parties' applications for costs incurred in relation to the husband's appeal against orders made by Moore J and other outstanding cost applications.

Ultimately, the court ordered that the husband pay a portion of the wife's costs on a party/party basis, to be agreed or assessed, in relation to specific applications including the husband's review application, his application for a stay, the wife's applications filed in January 2009 and July 2009, and the costs of a conciliation conference. The husband's own application for costs was dismissed.