Kalantari and Maine (No 3)

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by SS Pty Ltd, the former solicitor for Mr Kalantari (the husband), for leave to intervene in costs proceedings between the husband and Ms Maine (the wife). The primary dispute involved competing applications for costs following final property settlement orders made on 29 October 2020. The court also had to determine the wife's application for costs and the husband's response, which included a request for costs against the wife.

The legal issues before the court were whether SS Pty Ltd had standing to intervene in the costs proceedings, and if so, whether leave should be granted. The court was also required to determine the wife's application for costs and the husband's counter-application for costs, considering the conduct of the parties and other relevant factors under section 117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Stevenson J found that SS Pty Ltd lacked standing to intervene because the substantive property proceedings under section 79 of the Family Law Act had been finalised and perfected by orders entered on 29 October 2020. Citing *Bailey v Marinoff* and *Vadisanis v Vadisanis*, the court held that it was *functus officio* in relation to those proceedings, meaning it had no power to reopen perfected orders except in limited circumstances such as the correction of formal errors, fraud, or a failure to give a party a hearing, none of which applied here. The court determined that the orders sought by SS Pty Ltd would affect substantive rights and were not merely machinery or consequential orders. Furthermore, SS Pty Ltd had already commenced separate proceedings in the Local Court and Supreme Court to recover its costs from the husband, indicating an election of jurisdiction.

Consequently, the application by SS Pty Ltd for leave to intervene was refused. The court then turned to the competing costs applications between the husband and wife. After considering the conduct of the parties and other relevant matters under section 117 of the Family Law Act, the court ordered that within 28 days, the husband pay to the wife a sum of $20,000 on account of her costs in the property settlement proceedings.