Nasr and Dunlop (No. 2)

In *Nasr and Dunlop (No. 2)*, Baumann J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia was required to determine whether to make a costs order against the Applicant, Ms Nasr, who had been wholly unsuccessful in her substantive application. The Respondent, Mr Dunlop, sought a contribution towards his legal costs.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether circumstances existed to justify making a costs order against the Applicant, and if so, what the appropriate quantum of that order should be. This involved considering the various factors outlined in section 117(2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which governs costs in family law proceedings.

Baumann J reasoned that circumstances did exist to justify a costs order, applying the considerations under s 117(2A). The Court noted the Respondent's significantly superior financial position, the lack of legal aid for either party, and crucially, the Applicant's conduct. This conduct included non-compliance with trial directions, unsuccessful applications for adjournments, and a failure to accept settlement offers made by the Respondent, including one that proposed each party bear their own costs. The Court found that the Applicant's substantive application lacked evidential foundation and that she had ample opportunity to withdraw her claim without incurring a costs order. While not finding the Applicant's mindset to be vexatious or frivolous, the Court concluded that she ought to have withdrawn her weak case, which relied heavily on her uncorroborated evidence.

Consequently, Baumann J ordered that the Applicant pay to the Respondent a contribution to his costs fixed in the sum of $75,000, to be paid within sixty days of the order date.