Newman & Tate (No. 2)

The mother, Ms Newman, sought orders for the father, Mr Tate, to pay her legal costs incurred in interim parenting proceedings. These proceedings included a Contravention Application and an Application for a recovery order, which were heard and determined by a Senior Registrar. The father opposed these cost orders. The matter was heard by McClelland DCJ.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the conduct of the parties justified making orders for costs, and if so, on what basis. The court was required to consider the relevant provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly section 117(2A), which outlines factors to be considered when making costs orders, including the conduct of the parties. The court also considered the financial circumstances of both parties.

McClelland DCJ applied the principles established in *Wrensted & Eades*, confirming that there is no distinction in legislative considerations for costs orders in parenting proceedings compared to property proceedings. While acknowledging that both parties faced financial hardship in meeting legal fees, the court held that financial incapacity does not preclude a costs order where conduct warrants it. The court found that the mother was only partially successful in her application for costs, and therefore, an order for the totality of costs on an indemnity basis was not justified. However, the court did find that the father's conduct in relation to the Contravention and recovery order applications warranted an order for costs.

The court ordered Mr Tate to pay Ms Newman the sum of $23,092.25 in respect to legal fees incurred by her in relation to her Application in a Case filed 9 October 2020 and Contravention Application filed 12 October 2020, heard and determined on 20 October 2020.