Kendling v Kendling

The case of Kendling v Kendling involved an appeal by the husband against several orders made by the trial Judge in relation to a property settlement dispute. The husband argued that the trial Judge had erred in making certain orders for the payment of costs to the wife, including making orders for further funding after having already made similar orders eight months prior. The husband further contended that the trial Judge had failed to follow relevant principles and had not provided adequate reasons for the orders. The wife, on the other hand, maintained that the orders were appropriate and within the trial Judge's discretion.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the trial Judge had erred in making the subsequent orders for funding, whether the trial Judge had failed to consider the principles in Poletti & Poletti, whether the trial Judge had erred in not requiring the wife to provide an itemised bill of costs, and whether the orders were consistent with the decision in Chester & Chester. The court also considered whether the trial Judge had erred in relying on a proposed amount for the property settlement to support the further advance to the wife, and whether the trial Judge had failed to determine that the wife had the means to borrow to fund her own litigation.

The court found that there was no substance in the husband's grounds of appeal, but allowed the appeal to the extent necessary to modify existing injunctions in order to permit the husband to raise the funds required to be paid to the wife. The court held that the trial Judge had not erred in making the orders for further funding, and that the orders were consistent with the decision in Chester & Chester. The court also found that the trial Judge had not failed to follow the principles in Poletti & Poletti, and that there was no need for the wife to provide an itemised bill of costs. The court dismissed the applications to adduce further evidence and ordered the husband to pay the wife's costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal and appeal.