HARPS & HARPS

In *HARPS & HARPS*, Strickland J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application for costs following earlier proceedings. The husband conceded that a costs order was justified but opposed an order on an indemnity basis, seeking instead to challenge the quantum of costs claimed by the wife. The costs in question arose from the husband's alleged non-compliance with court orders.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the husband's conduct constituted a "special or unusual feature" that would justify departing from the usual order for party-party costs, and secondly, the reasonableness of the quantum of costs claimed by the wife, particularly in light of her costs agreement with her solicitors. The husband challenged the reasonableness of this agreement.

Strickland J reasoned that while the husband's non-compliance was a factor, it did not, in itself, amount to the special or unusual feature required to justify an indemnity costs order. Regarding the quantum, the court noted the absence of further evidence beyond the costs agreement and a comparison with the scale of costs. The Judge was not satisfied that all the work identified in the wife's claim was necessary for the purpose of dealing with the husband's non-compliance. Consequently, the court ordered the husband to pay the sum of $14,850.00 inclusive of GST to the wife's solicitors within two months. The wife's application for costs contained in her Application in a Case filed on 10 November 2008 was dismissed.