Iphostrou and Iphostrou & Ors (No 3)

In *Iphostrou and Iphostrou & Ors (No 3)*, the Honourable Justice Cronin of the Family Court of Australia considered an application for indemnity costs against a legal practitioner, Mr G. The dispute arose from a hearing on 28 February 2011, where costs were sought against Mr G in relation to the proceedings involving various respondents.

The central legal issue before the court was whether indemnity costs should be awarded against Mr G, a legal practitioner, in circumstances where costs were being sought by multiple respondents. The court was required to determine if Mr G's conduct warranted such an order, which typically involves a higher standard of proof and justification than ordinary costs.

Justice Cronin ultimately refused the application for indemnity costs against Mr G. While the specific reasons for this refusal are not detailed in the provided text, the decision indicates that the threshold for ordering indemnity costs against a legal practitioner was not met in this instance. The court did, however, make orders for Mr G to pay the costs thrown away for the hearing on 28 February 2011 for several named respondents, with these costs to be determined by agreement or, failing that, by assessment.