Korrapati and Mishra (No. 2)

In *Korrapati and Mishra (No. 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the respondent father for costs against the applicant mother. The dispute arose in the context of parenting proceedings, where the mother had sought an injunction to restrain the father's use of certain property.

The primary legal issue before Carew J was whether the circumstances of the case justified making a costs order against the mother, despite her initial lack of success in staying the parenting proceedings. The mother resisted the costs application, arguing that her application for injunctions was necessary due to the father's prior disposal of property and non-compliance with disclosure obligations. She also contended that a significant amendment to the father's offer regarding the injunctions on the day of the hearing necessitated her appearance. Furthermore, she submitted that the jurisdictional argument presented a novel issue without clear authority, and that if a costs order were made, it should be payable from her property settlement due to her financial circumstances.

Carew J dismissed the respondent father's application for costs. His Honour was not persuaded that the circumstances warranted a costs order. The proceedings involved the interpretation of specific legislative provisions, including section 111CC of the Act, which had not been extensively discussed in prior case law. The outcome was determined by the particular facts of the case and the interpretation of the legislation. The court noted that the father's offer concerning the injunction was substantially amended on the hearing day, making an appearance necessary even without the jurisdictional challenge. Consequently, the application by the respondent for costs in relation to the applicant’s Application in a Case filed 10 December 2020 was dismissed.