PECKS & PECKS (No.2)

In the matter of PECKS & PECKS (No.2), Judge Riley of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was required to determine an application for costs made by the father following parenting proceedings. The father sought various orders for costs incurred in the substantive proceedings and a subsequent costs application, proposing different bases for assessment and periods of recovery. The mother, in contrast, proposed that each party should bear their own costs for both the substantive proceedings and the costs arguments.

The central legal issue before the court was the appropriate quantum and basis for awarding costs to the father, considering the history of the litigation, offers of settlement, and the conduct of the parties. The court had to assess whether the father's extensive claims for costs were justified, and whether the mother's proposal for each party to bear their own costs was appropriate in the circumstances. The court also considered the father's alternative claims for costs on a lawyer/client, party/party, and indemnity basis, as well as specific costs related to a costs application.

Judge Riley reasoned that the father's costs application was largely unsuccessful, particularly in relation to the substantive proceedings. The court noted that the father had made numerous offers of settlement, one of which, made on 16 September 2019, was not accepted by the mother. However, the court found that the father's claims for costs were excessive and that the mother's conduct did not warrant an order for costs against her on a lawyer/client or indemnity basis. The court ultimately ordered the mother to pay a reduced sum of $40,000 towards the father's costs of the parenting proceeding, payable by instalments over several years. All other extant applications were dismissed.