Renald & Renald (Costs)

Renald & Renald (Costs) involved an appeal regarding an order for costs between the appellant and the respondent, who were both parties in the underlying family law matter. The appellant sought an order for costs from the respondent, arguing that both parties had limited income but the respondent possessed assets that could cover the costs. The appeal centred on whether the respondent should bear the appellant's costs, given the financial circumstances of both parties. The Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate course of action regarding the costs order.

The court had to decide whether it was appropriate to make an order for costs in favour of the appellant, considering the financial hardship it would impose on the respondent. The court noted that while the respondent was not wholly unsuccessful in the appeal, the appellant had achieved very limited success. The court also examined the conduct of the parties in relation to the proceedings, as required by s 117(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The court concluded that the appellant’s failure to comply with previous orders did not necessitate the appeal proceedings. Given the limited success of the respondent in the appeal, the court found it appropriate to order the respondent to pay the appellant's costs.

The court ultimately determined that while both parties faced financial constraints, the respondent had the capacity to meet the costs sought by the appellant. The court found that making an order for costs would impose financial hardship on the respondent, but the failure to make such an order would impose similar hardship on the appellant. The court considered the financial situation of both parties and the limited success of the respondent in the appeal, ultimately deciding that the respondent should bear the appellant's costs. The court ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal, including the costs associated with the appellant's application for costs, subject to assessment if not agreed.

The court granted the appellant leave to rely on the submissions filed on 27 July 2017 and dismissed the application in an appeal filed on 16 August 2017. The court allowed the application in an appeal filed on 27 July 2017 and ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal, including the costs associated with the appellant’s application for costs. The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.