Papadopoulos & Papadopoulos

In *Papadopoulos & Papadopoulos*, the Family Court of Australia considered interlocutory matters concerning discovery and costs in a complex financial proceeding. The applicant wife sought further disclosure of documents from the respondent husband and a further litigation funding order, while the husband resisted the extent of the requested discovery and the quantum of costs.

The court was required to determine the appropriate time limitation for the husband to provide documents, specifically whether disclosure should extend back to 2002 or be limited to 2004, and to consider the wife's application for an additional litigation funding order beyond an initial $25,000 previously ordered. Additionally, the court had to decide on the allocation of costs associated with previous hearings, particularly the hearing on 19 December 2006.

Regarding discovery, the court ordered the husband to provide documents back to 2004, but included a provision allowing for disclosure further back to 2002 if the wife's chartered accountant unequivocally justified the need after examining the initial documents. This approach aimed to balance the wife's reliance on her professional advisors for a comprehensive financial overview with the need for cost containment. On the issue of costs, the court ordered the husband to pay one half of the wife's legal costs for specific attendances and preparation related to the "Barro" and spousal maintenance application heard on 19 December 2006, with the quantum to be agreed or determined by the Family Law Rules. Costs for other hearings were reserved for the trial judge.

Finally, the court granted a further litigation funding order of $25,000 to the wife, acknowledging that the initial funds had been largely used for legal fees due to delays in discovery and the complexity of the proceedings. The court applied the principles from *Zschokke and Zschokke*, finding that the husband's financial affairs were complex, expert investigation was necessary, the husband was in a stronger financial position, and the wife lacked the capacity to fund her own litigation. This additional sum was to be taken into account by the trial judge in the final property settlement.