PATINOS & PATINOS

In *Patino & Patino*, the Applicant Wife sought costs against the Respondent Husband following the consent resolution of property proceedings. The Wife was legally aided and had the sole care of the youngest child of the relationship. The basis of her application was an offer made by the Husband after a conciliation conference.

The Court was required to determine whether to depart from the usual rule that parties bear their own costs in family law proceedings, particularly in light of the Wife's legal aid status and the Husband's offer to compromise. The Court considered the principles governing the award of costs, including the general rule that costs are awarded on a party and party basis, and the exceptional circumstances required to justify an order for indemnity costs.

Judge Neville referred to the principles outlined in *Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd*, which establish that costs orders are generally made on a party and party basis unless the circumstances warrant a departure. While an imprudent refusal of an offer to compromise can be a factor justifying a departure, the Court found that the specific circumstances of this case did not warrant such a departure. The Court noted that the Wife was legally aided and that the Husband's offer, while made, did not meet the threshold for an indemnity costs order given the overall context of the proceedings and the need for justice and equity.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the Husband's application and the Wife's response thereto. The final orders stipulated that each party was to bear their own costs of, and incidental to, the proceedings, and all extant applications were dismissed, finalising the matter.