HAVEN & HAVEN

In *Haven & Haven*, the wife (applicant) sought property alteration and spousal maintenance from the husband (respondent) in the National Arbitration List. The arbitrator dismissed the wife's applications. The husband then sought indemnity costs exceeding $240,000, despite the wife being without financial means.

The central legal issue before Wilson J was whether to grant the husband's application for indemnity costs, and if so, to what extent, considering the wife's impecuniosity and the husband's offer of compromise.

Wilson J reasoned that while the husband was entitled to costs on an indemnity basis due to the wife's rejection of a better offer of compromise, ordering the full amount sought would be unjust given the wife's financial circumstances. The court applied the principle that costs orders, even on an indemnity basis, must be just and equitable. Consequently, the court ordered the wife to pay the husband's costs on an indemnity basis in the sum of $30,000, payable within 90 days.