Rickards & Rickards

In *Rickards & Rickards*, the father discontinued an application concerning children in the Federal Magistrates Court, prompting the mother to seek costs. The Federal Magistrate subsequently made a costs order of $14,191 in favour of the mother, based on a bill of costs that was incorrectly prepared and calculated on an indemnity basis.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Federal Magistrate erred in the making of the costs order. Specifically, the court considered whether the Magistrate was entitled to focus on the parties' income disparity and whether the costs should have been calculated on an indemnity basis rather than the standard party-party basis. The court also considered the costs of the appeal itself.

Kay J found that while the Federal Magistrate did not err by considering the income disparity, there were no circumstances justifying a departure from the standard party-party costs basis. The Magistrate was obliged to make an order in accordance with the Federal Magistrates Court scale for the calculation of party-party costs. The parties subsequently agreed to allow the appeal in part, reducing the quantum of costs to $7,500 in favour of the mother. Regarding the costs of the appeal, given that both parties had achieved some success and shared some responsibility for the Magistrate's error, the court determined it was not appropriate to depart from the general rule that parties bear their own costs.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the original costs order was varied to reduce the sum payable to the mother to $7,500. No order was made for the costs of the appeal.