Hartnett & Sampson (Costs)

This matter concerned an application for costs orders made by Gayle Meredith, Michael Taussig, Debra Cherrie, and Impact Capital Limited (the respondents) against Mr Hartnett (the applicant) in proceedings heard on 12 October 2007. The application sought to recover the costs incurred by the respondents in relation to a specific application within the broader case.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether costs should be awarded against the applicant, Mr Hartnett, in favour of the respondents, who were non-parties to the original proceedings. The Court was required to consider the relevant provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), specifically section 117(2A), which governs costs orders in relation to non-parties, and to determine the appropriate basis for such costs, namely indemnity or party/party.

In reaching its decision, the Court applied the principles governing costs orders against non-parties. The Court found that it was appropriate to order the applicant to pay the costs of the respondents. These costs were to be assessed on a party/party basis, with any agreement between the parties to be given effect, or failing agreement, to be determined in accordance with the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the Court certified that it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend the hearing, pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the *Family Law Rules 2004*.