Huffman and Gorman (Costs)

The Family Court of Australia, in the matter of Huffman and Gorman (Costs), considered an application by the father, Mr Huffman, for costs following his unsuccessful interim application. The application concerned the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations, USB drives, purported transcripts, and photographs for a single expert psychiatrist. The mother, Ms Gorman, and the Independent Children’s Lawyer opposed the father's application, which was ultimately dismissed by the Court.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to depart from the general rule under section 117(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which stipulates that each party should bear their own costs. This required the Court to consider the circumstances justifying a departure under section 117(2) and the factors outlined in section 117(2A), including the conduct of the parties and whether any party was wholly unsuccessful.

Justice Foster reasoned that the father's application was wholly unsuccessful, necessitating the mother to incur expenses in resisting it. The Court found that the father's attempt to agitate the issue on an interim basis, particularly given the potential inadmissibility of the evidence and the need for cross-examination, was untimely and inappropriate. Consequently, the Court determined that there were justifiable circumstances to depart from the general rule.

The Court ordered that the father pay the mother's costs of and incidental to the application filed on 9 December 2013, to be agreed between the parties or otherwise assessed.