On & On (No. 2)

This supplementary judgment from the Family Court of Australia concerns the costs applications made by both the wife (Applicant) and the husband (Respondent) following substantive proceedings. The court had previously delivered a judgment on 10 July 2007, followed by further judgments on 18 December 2007 and 12 February 2008, which had ordered the husband to pay the wife's costs on a lawyer and client basis and dismissed his own costs application. This judgment addresses the husband's subsequent submissions, which were filed late due to a breakdown in court document distribution procedures.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the applications for costs, specifically whether to vary or interfere with the previous orders made on 12 February 2008. This required the court to consider the husband's written submissions and affidavit, filed on 24 January 2008, which largely reiterated criticisms of the substantive judgment and raised issues already determined. The court also had to consider the wife's reply submissions, which argued that the husband's submissions failed to meet the criteria for a costs order in his favour under section 117(2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Justice Guest reasoned that the husband's submissions were largely irrelevant to the costs issue, focusing instead on re-agitating matters already decided in the substantive judgment and not subject to appeal. The court found that the husband's criticisms of the substantive judgment were matters for an appellate court, not for this court to reconsider. Furthermore, the husband's arguments regarding prior offers were found to be unpersuasive, particularly as one offer had been withdrawn and the wife's ability to consider it was hampered by a lack of full disclosure and independent valuations. The court noted that the husband had been wholly unsuccessful in the proceedings, while the wife had been wholly successful.

Consequently, the court found no basis to vary or interfere with the orders made on 12 February 2008. The husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs of and incidental to the substantive proceedings, to be assessed on a lawyer and client basis, and his application for costs was dismissed.