Rakete v Rakete

In *Rakete v Rakete*, heard by Kent J, the applicant wife sought an interim costs order under s 117(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This application was ancillary to her primary application to overturn a Binding Financial Agreement made between the parties. The wife had a low income and the care of the parties' children, while the husband possessed a substantially greater income and retained all assets from the matrimonial pool.

The court was required to determine whether "justifying circumstances" existed for an interim costs order and, if so, whether such an order would be "just" in the circumstances. Additionally, the court considered its power to order private mediation of the dispute under the Act.

Kent J reasoned that the disparity in income and asset retention, coupled with the wife's role as primary caregiver, constituted justifying circumstances for an interim costs order. The court found that ordering the husband to contribute to the wife's costs was just, given the financial imbalance and the need for the wife to be able to adequately pursue her claims. The court also exercised its power to order mediation, offering a conditional costs order contingent on the parties' agreement to private mediation.

The court made several orders regarding costs. If the parties agreed to private mediation within fourteen days, the husband was to pay $28,498.00 on account of the wife's costs. If mediation did not occur or was unsuccessful, further sums were payable. The wife was authorised to use these funds solely for legal costs. The court also ordered that the wife's claims under s 90K of the Act be heard as a discrete issue, with further directions to be made by a Registrar. The costs of this specific application were reserved to the trial judge.