Kruger & Kruger (No. 2)

In *Kruger & Kruger (No. 2)*, Coleman J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the husband for an order for costs on an indemnity basis in property settlement proceedings. The wife also sought costs.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the husband's offer to settle the proceedings was valid and precluded reliance upon it for an indemnity costs order, and whether the wife's claim was fanciful. The court also had to consider the overall conduct of the parties and the trial, and whether either party was wholly successful or unsuccessful.

Coleman J reasoned that the husband's offer to settle was not invalid, despite superficial appearances suggesting the wife might have been better off or no worse off had she accepted it. The court found that further aspects of the complex proceedings meant that acceptance of the offer would not have brought an end to the dispute. While the wife's claim was optimistic, it was not considered fanciful, and the parties had a legitimate dispute to agitate. The trial was conducted with economy and expedition, and neither party achieved complete success. Consequently, the court determined that an order for costs on an indemnity basis was not appropriate.

The court ordered that the husband's application for costs be dismissed, and the wife's application for costs be dismissed. Each party was ordered to pay his or her own costs of and incidental to the proceedings.