POOLE & POOLE (No.2)

In the matter of *Poole & Poole (No.2)*, Judge Harman of the Family Court of Australia considered an application for costs brought by Ms Poole following the determination of property adjustment and parenting proceedings. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Ms Poole had established a "justifying circumstance" for an award of costs against Mr Poole.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Ms Poole's conduct during the proceedings warranted an order for costs in her favour. Specifically, the court had to determine if Ms Poole had genuinely prosecuted her position or acted in good faith throughout the litigation, as required to establish a justifying circumstance for departing from the usual rule that each party bears their own costs.

Judge Harman dismissed Ms Poole's application for costs. The court found that Ms Poole had not genuinely prosecuted her position nor acted in good faith during the proceedings. Consequently, no justifying circumstance was made out to deviate from the standard costs rule.

The court ordered that Ms Poole's application for costs be dismissed. Furthermore, each party was ordered to bear their own costs of and incidental to both the original property and parenting proceedings, as well as the costs associated with the determination of the costs application itself.