Natt vs Tuan

In *Natt & Tuan*, the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) applied to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for an order that the mother pay their costs in the sum of $6,892.90. The dispute concerned parenting arrangements for the parties' children, and a final agreement was reached between the parties prior to the final hearing. The mother opposed the ICL's application, contending that she would experience financial hardship if ordered to pay the costs.

The court was required to determine whether to make an order for the mother to pay the ICL's costs, considering the provisions of section 117(2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to assess the mother's financial circumstances and her conduct in the proceedings.

McClelland DCJ considered the mother's financial position, noting that she had incurred substantial costs in the proceedings, which necessitated her and the children moving in with her parents. The mother had a modest income from casual employment and bore the sole financial responsibility for raising the children, receiving minimal child support from the father. The court found that ordering the mother to pay the ICL's costs would cause her financial hardship, a relevant factor under section 117(2A)(a). Furthermore, the court considered the mother's conduct under section 117(2A)(c), finding that she had approached the litigation responsibly and balancedly, contributing to the resolution of the matter without proceeding to a final hearing. This resolution saved time and resources for all parties and the court.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the ICL's application for costs against the mother, making no order as to the costs of the ICL. This meant each party, including the ICL, was to bear their own costs.