Medlon and Medlon (No 7)

The matter of Medlon and Medlon (No 7) involved a dispute between the parties in the context of family law. The wife had appealed against a decision of the trial judge, challenging the costs order made against her. She argued that the trial judge had erred in not offsetting the husband's non-compliance with previous orders and had failed to consider the prejudice caused to her by enforcement of those orders. Furthermore, she contended that the trial judge should have found the husband's application to be vexatious and an abuse of process.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in the costs order and whether the wife's application to lead further evidence in the appeal should be granted. The court found that there was no error by the trial judge in the costs order, as the wife had not demonstrated any such error. Additionally, the court dismissed the wife's application to lead further evidence, as she had blatantly disregarded the order made for the filing of such an application. Although an extension of time was granted in the interests of justice, most of the evidence sought to be presented was irrelevant or inadmissible. The evidence the wife was permitted to rely on did not demonstrate any error by the trial judge.

The appeal was dismissed, and the application in an appeal was also dismissed. The court further ordered that the wife pay the husband's costs of and incidental to the Notice of Appeal and the application in an appeal on an indemnity basis, as the appeal was misconceived, had no chance of success, and should not have been brought. The husband had been put to unnecessary cost in responding to the appeal and the application in an appeal. The wife opposed the application for indemnity costs, relying on her financial circumstances, but the court found that she had ongoing employment and assets, including real estate, and thus had financial resources available to her. The court concluded that impecuniosity was not a bar to a costs order being made when the circumstances justified such an order. The exceptional circumstances present in this case justified a departure from the ordinary rule as to costs.