Grieves and Tully (No 2)

In *Grieves & Tully (No 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application for costs following a prior hearing. The applicant was Mr Grieves (the husband) and the respondent was Ms Tully (the wife). The Independent Children’s Lawyer was also involved but did not actively participate in the costs application. The dispute centred on the wife's claim for costs of $13,386, which the husband sought to offset due to alleged delay by the wife in raising certain issues.

The court was required to determine what costs order, if any, would be just pursuant to section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved considering the financial circumstances of the parties, their conduct in the proceedings, whether any party was wholly unsuccessful, and any other relevant matters. Specifically, the court had to assess the wife's claim for full costs against the husband's submission that a portion of these costs should be offset due to the wife's delay in objecting to the husband's solicitor's continued representation.

Justice Young applied the principles of section 117 of the *Family Law Act*, noting the overarching principle that parties generally bear their own costs, but that discretion exists to make a costs order where circumstances justify it. The court found that the wife was wholly successful in the substantive application, justifying an award of costs. However, the court also acknowledged the husband's submission regarding delay, finding substance in the argument that the wife's solicitors could and should have raised the conflict issue earlier. Balancing these factors, and taking a pragmatic approach, the court decided to offset a portion of the wife's claimed costs.

The court ordered that the husband pay the wife's costs of and incidental to the hearing in the sum of $10,000, to be paid within twenty-eight days. This represented a reduction of $3,386 from the wife's claimed costs, reflecting the offset for the lack of timely objection to the husband's solicitor. The court declined to refer the matter for taxation, deeming it likely to incur substantial further costs.