Giunta and Giunta (No. 4)

In the matter of Giunta and Giunta (No. 4), the wife sought orders that the husband pay her costs of the substantive proceedings for parenting and property orders on an indemnity basis. The court was required to consider the conduct of the husband in the proceedings and the wife's formal written offer of settlement in determining the appropriate cost orders.

The legal issues before the court were whether the husband's conduct warranted costs being awarded on an indemnity basis, and how to assess and apportion costs given the intertwined nature of the parenting and property aspects of the proceedings, particularly in light of the wife's settlement offer. The court also considered the wife's applications filed on 7 June 2021 and 14 July 2021.

McClelland DCJ found that while a genuine dispute existed regarding the parenting aspect, the husband's conduct did not justify an indemnity order for costs. However, the wife's formal written offer of settlement was considered a significant factor justifying cost orders in respect to the property dispute. Due to the lack of evidence detailing the nature of the work for which the wife had incurred legal costs and the intertwined nature of the parenting and property proceedings, the court was unable to make a fair and reasonable estimate of costs relating solely to the property dispute. Consequently, the court ordered the husband to pay 50 per cent of the wife's costs, assessed on a party/party basis, incurred from the date of the settlement offer, being 14 November 2019. The wife's application filed on 14 July 2021 was dismissed, with no orders as to costs for that application or the application filed on 7 June 2021.