Perkins and Perkins

In *Perkins and Perkins*, heard in the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne, the applicant wife sought costs following earlier property division orders made on 31 January 2007. The dispute centred on whether the husband should contribute to the wife's legal expenses incurred in the proceedings, particularly after the wife made a formal offer to settle the property matters in September 2006.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether there were circumstances justifying an order for costs against the husband, pursuant to section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This required the Court to consider the general rule that each party bears their own costs, but also to examine specific factors outlined in section 117(2A), including the financial circumstances of the parties, the conduct of the proceedings, and the reasonableness of their respective positions. The Court also had to determine the appropriate quantum of any costs order, if made.

Cronin J reasoned that while both parties had modest financial positions, the husband was in a stronger financial position than the wife and had been unrealistic in his approach to both the property and parenting issues. The Court noted that the husband had rejected or failed to respond to a reasonable settlement offer made by the wife in September 2006, an offer which mirrored the terms of the Court's subsequent property orders. Despite the husband representing himself, the Court found his position to be unreasonable, particularly as he had legal representation at an earlier defaulters list hearing. Considering these factors, and the fact that the wife had incurred significant costs in obtaining a just outcome, the Court determined it was just to make an order for costs in the wife's favour. However, exercising its discretion, the Court ordered the husband to pay a contribution towards the wife's costs, rather than the full amount sought.

The Court ordered that the husband pay the wife's costs fixed at $5,000, with payment due by 1 May 2007. The wife's application for costs was otherwise dismissed.