Mendicino and Mendicino and Ors

In the matter of *Mendicino and Mendicino and Ors* [2014] FamCA 692, Ms Mendicino was the applicant, and the respondents sought orders that she pay their costs thrown away by an amended pleading filed outside the ordered timeframe. The dispute concerned the wife's non-compliance with court orders and the subsequent applications for strike out.

The primary legal issue before Kent J was whether there were circumstances justifying an order for costs against the applicant, and whether the costs of the strike-out applications should be reserved. The court was required to consider the application of section 117(2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) in the context of these preliminary applications.

Kent J reasoned that the considerations relevant to section 117(2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which governs costs in family law proceedings, could only be properly addressed once the substantive claims in the proceeding had been determined. Therefore, it was not appropriate to make a final determination on costs at this interlocutory stage.

Consequently, it was ordered that the costs of each party of and incidental to the applications of the respondents to strike out the applicant’s statement of claim, including the costs associated with the applicant filing and serving an amended statement of claim on 25 August 2014, be reserved to the trial judge.