Mickler & Majors

In *Mickler & Majors*, heard by Hannam J in the Family Court of Australia, the father sought an order that the mother pay his costs on an indemnity basis. The dispute concerned parenting arrangements for the parties' child, with a history of separation, reconciliation, and previous court proceedings. A key event was a mediation where the parties reached an agreement on most matters, but the mother subsequently withdrew her consent to the proposed orders.

The central legal issue before the court was whether there were circumstances justifying a departure from the usual rule that each party bears their own costs in family law proceedings. The father contended that the mother's conduct, including her refusal to accept a reasonable settlement offer and her failure to comply with court orders, warranted a costs order in his favour.

Hannam J considered the principles governing costs orders in family law, referencing decisions such as *Penfold v Penfold*, *Hawkins & Roe*, and *Wrensted & Eades*. The court noted that while circumstances justifying a costs order need not be exceptional, they must be sufficient to warrant such an order. The judge found that the mother's conduct, particularly her refusal of a reasonable and constructive offer of settlement that mirrored the eventual agreed orders, and her failure to comply with court orders, constituted sufficient grounds to depart from the usual rule.

Consequently, the court ordered that the mother pay the father's costs of and incidental to the proceedings from 15 June 2020 to 27 January 2021, and the costs of the final hearing days of 28 and 29 January 2021, on a party/party basis. The court declined to order costs on an indemnity basis, as sought by the father.