Ming & Dao (No. 3)

The case of *Ming & Dao (No. 3)* involved an application by the wife for costs of and incidental to interim property proceedings heard by Altobelli J in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The dispute arose from an urgent application filed by the husband concerning the distribution of proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned property. The wife subsequently filed a costs application seeking that the husband pay her costs associated with that application.

The court was required to determine whether there were circumstances justifying an order for costs against the husband, pursuant to section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved considering the various factors outlined in section 117(2A), including the financial circumstances of the parties, the conduct of the parties in relation to the proceedings, and any other relevant matters. The husband resisted the wife's application, proposing that the matter of costs be reserved for determination at the final hearing.

Altobelli J considered the financial positions of both parties, noting the husband's assertion of limited financial capacity and the wife's substantial assets. The court found that there was significant uncertainty regarding the husband's financial position and his entitlement to a final property settlement, which was a matter for determination at the final hearing. While the husband's interim application had been unsuccessful, the court found no conduct that warranted making a costs order against him at that stage of the proceedings.

Consequently, the court ordered that the question of whether the husband ought to pay the wife's costs of and incidental to the application filed on 3 December 2020 be reserved for determination at the conclusion of the proceedings.