Kaimal & Kaimal (No. 2)

In *Kaimal & Kaimal (No. 2)*, Alstergren CJ of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife for costs and a counter-application by the husband for no order as to costs. The dispute centred on whether the husband should be ordered to pay the wife's legal costs, and if so, on what basis.

The court was required to determine the appropriate costs order, having regard to the factors stipulated in section 117(2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). These factors include the financial circumstances of the parties, the conduct of the parties in relation to the proceedings, whether the proceedings were necessitated by a failure to comply with previous orders, whether any party was wholly unsuccessful, and whether any settlement offers were made.

Alstergren CJ noted that costs orders are discretionary and require consideration of all relevant factors under section 117(2A), with no single factor being determinative. While the wife presented evidence of her financial difficulties, the court found insufficient clear evidence regarding the husband's financial position to give significant weight to this factor. The court ultimately found that the circumstances justified ordering the husband to pay the wife's costs for specific court appearances on 14 February 2020, 1 April 2020, and 12 May 2020, on a party-party basis.

The husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs on a party-party basis for the specified court dates. The parties were directed to agree on the sum payable by a specified date, failing which the costs were to be assessed by a Registrar.