Jenkins & Anor & Jenkins

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms B Jenkins and Mr R Jenkins (the applicants) sought a review of an order made by Registrar Riddiford on 11 May 2012, which assessed the costs payable by the applicants to Ms M Jenkins and Mr C Jenkins (the respondents). The applicants filed an Application in a Case and an Application for Review on 30 July 2012, both seeking to challenge the Registrar's cost assessment.

The court was required to determine whether the applications for review were properly before it and, if so, to consider the grounds of objection to the Registrar's cost assessment. Specifically, the court needed to ascertain if the applicants had followed the correct procedural steps for seeking a review of a costs assessment under the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

Justice Macmillan found that the applicants had not complied with the procedural requirements for a review of a costs assessment. The applicants had failed to request the Registrar's reasons for the assessment within the prescribed time and had not filed an affidavit setting out the required evidence or objections to specific items in the costs account, as mandated by Rule 19.54. Furthermore, the court determined that the applicants' objections were not to the assessment of costs itself, but rather to the original costs order made by Strickland J on appeal, and to issues arising from the trial and the appeal, such as the evidence of an independent children's lawyer and financial disclosure. These matters were outside the scope of a review of a costs assessment.

Consequently, Justice Macmillan dismissed both the Application in a Case and the Application for Review, finding them to be misconceived. The applications were removed from the list of cases awaiting hearing.