RAMON & LEMOND

In the matter of RAMON & LEMOND, the mother sought costs against the father following the parties entering into consent orders that resolved all disputed parenting issues. The mother's application for costs was based on two primary contentions: firstly, that the father had failed to comply with section 60I of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) by not engaging in family dispute resolution with her before commencing proceedings, and secondly, that the father had not adhered to the provisions for the service of documents.

The court was required to determine whether the father's alleged non-compliance with the family dispute resolution requirements, and his acknowledged difficulties with the timely service of documents, justified an order for costs against him. A further consideration for the court was whether costs should be awarded in circumstances where the dispute was resolved by compromise rather than by a determination on the merits of the application. The father had previously been granted an exemption from filing a section 60I certificate by a Registrar due to circumstances of urgency.

McClelland DCJ dismissed the mother's application for costs. The court considered the father's prior successful application for an exemption from the section 60I certificate requirement, which was granted on grounds of urgency. While acknowledging the father's admission of issues with the timely service of documents, the court found that these failures did not warrant an order for costs, particularly in light of the parties having resolved their parenting dispute by way of consent orders. The court applied the principle that costs are generally awarded to indemnify a successful party, and in this instance, the application for costs was not successful.

The mother's Application for costs was dismissed.