Grange and Grange and Ors (Costs)

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Grange was the applicant, Mr Grange was the first respondent, and Ms A was the second respondent in property adjustment proceedings. The case concerned an application by Mr Grange to join his daughter, Ms H, as a third respondent to these proceedings. Ms H was represented by counsel and appeared in person at the hearing.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant Ms H's application for costs against Mr Grange, following the dismissal of Mr Grange's application to join Ms H as a party. This involved considering the discretion of the court to award costs under sections 117(1) and 117(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), despite the general principle that parties bear their own costs. The court also had to consider the fact that Mr Grange was an undischarged bankrupt.

Justice Forrest reasoned that Mr Grange's application to join Ms H was wholly unsuccessful and lacked merit, particularly as the central issue had already been litigated and determined against him in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court found that Mr Grange's conduct in pursuing this application was unreasonable and vexatious, causing Ms H to incur further legal costs. While acknowledging Mr Grange's bankruptcy, the court determined that this did not preclude making a costs order, as unmeritorious claims should not be brought before the court with impunity.

Consequently, the court ordered that Mr Grange pay Ms H’s costs of and incidental to responding to his application to join her as a party. These costs were to be agreed between the parties or assessed by a Registrar on a party and party basis.