POYZER & TRITTON

In *Poyzer & Tritton*, Benjamin J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was required to determine an application for costs made by Mr Poyzer (the husband) following final orders made on 24 May 2017. The dispute concerned the legal costs and disbursements incurred by the husband in relation to an initiating application filed by Ms Tritton (the wife) on 25 May 2016.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the wife should be ordered to pay the husband's costs, and if so, on what basis. This involved considering the provisions of sections 117 and 117(2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which govern costs in family law proceedings, and applying relevant case law, including *Cachia v Haines* and *Prantage v Prantage*.

His Honour reasoned that an order for costs was appropriate in this instance. The court applied the principles that costs follow the event and that the court has a broad discretion to make orders for costs. The court considered the nature of the proceedings and the outcome of the final orders.

The court ordered that the wife pay the legal costs and disbursements of the husband associated with the initiating application. These costs were to be agreed or assessed under the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth) on a party/party basis, including fees for senior counsel, and it was certified that engaging senior counsel was reasonable.