Pourdis and Pourdis and Ors

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Pourdis (the applicant) and Mr Pourdis (the respondent) were involved in proceedings where the Bank of Queensland and its Receivers and Managers (the interveners) sought costs. The dispute concerned an application by the interveners for costs related to setting aside a previous court order made on 26 September 2012.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the circumstances justified making a costs order in favour of the interveners, and if so, whether such costs should be borne solely by the wife, the husband, or jointly by both parties. This required the court to consider the provisions of section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly the factors relevant to determining what is just and equitable when making costs orders, including the success of the interveners and the financial circumstances of the parties.

Justice Dawe found that the interveners were wholly successful in their application, which was ultimately resolved by consent. However, the court noted that the consent order of 26 September 2012 had been made without the required notice being given to the Bank of Queensland, contrary to an earlier court order. Given this lack of procedural fairness and the fact that the previous order was a consent order of both the husband and wife, the court determined it was not just and equitable to order that only the wife pay the interveners' costs. Consequently, the court ordered that the husband and wife jointly pay the interveners' costs of and incidental to the application, with the understanding that these costs could be subject to further adjustment upon final property settlement.