Rimac & Rimac (No 2)

In the case of Rimac & Rimac (No 2), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia made an order in relation to costs following the husband's rejection of a formal offer of settlement. The wife, Ms Rimac, sought costs from her former husband, Mr Rimac, in relation to family law proceedings. The court was required to determine whether the husband's rejection of a formal offer of settlement was imprudent and whether costs should be awarded on a party/party basis up until the date of the offer and on an indemnity basis from the date of the offer.

The court found that the husband's rejection of the formal offer of settlement was imprudent. The husband failed to engage in the proceedings in a manner that facilitated the just and timely resolution of the matter, despite guidance and direction provided by the court. Additionally, the husband made unfounded and scurrilous allegations against the wife, which were rejected by the court. The court held that the husband's conduct prolonged the proceedings and failed to constructively engage in the issues that required adjudication.

The court ordered that the husband pay the wife's costs on a party/party basis up until the date of the offer of settlement and on an indemnity basis from the date of the offer. The court found that the husband's financial circumstances did not preclude an order for costs. The court also noted that the husband had been granted several adjournments to enable him to properly prepare his case and engage appropriately qualified legal advisers, but he failed to utilise those opportunities. The court held that the husband's conduct warranted an order for indemnity costs from the date of the offer of settlement.

In conclusion, the court held that the husband's rejection of the formal offer of settlement was imprudent and ordered costs on a party/party basis up until the date of the offer and on an indemnity basis from the date of the offer. The court found that the husband's conduct prolonged the proceedings and failed to constructively engage in the issues that required adjudication. The court's decision is consistent with the principles set out in Fitzgerald v Fish, where the Full Court confirmed that it was not necessary for each of the factors listed in s 117(2A) to be met in order for the Court to make a costs order.