Parkes and Parkes (No 3)

This matter concerned an application by the wife for an order that the husband pay her legal costs of the proceedings in the Family Court of Australia. The parties were engaged in protracted litigation concerning property settlement and spousal maintenance. The wife sought an order that the husband pay her costs on an indemnity basis, or alternatively, on a standard basis.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the husband's conduct during the proceedings warranted an order for indemnity costs. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the husband had engaged in unreasonable litigation tactics or behaved in a manner that justified departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event. The Court also considered the wife's financial position and her ability to meet her own legal costs.

Thornton J found that while the husband's conduct had been difficult and had contributed to the length and expense of the proceedings, it did not reach the threshold for an order for indemnity costs. The Court noted that the husband had not acted vexatiously or unreasonably in a way that would justify such an exceptional order. However, the Court did find that the husband's conduct warranted a departure from the usual costs order. The Court applied the principles established in cases such as *Oshlack v English (1991)* and *Re Pepper (1992)*, which outline the circumstances in which indemnity costs may be awarded, and the general principles governing costs orders in family law matters.

The Court ordered that the husband pay the wife's costs of the proceedings on a standard basis, to be assessed.