ROWE & HELBIG

In the matter of *Rowe & Helbig*, the applicant sought costs in relation to substantive parenting proceedings. The respondent had also sought the recusal of the judge on the grounds of apprehended bias, and had questioned the jurisdiction of the court to make a costs order.

The court was required to determine whether the respondent’s application for recusal was made out, whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the costs application, and whether costs should be awarded in favour of the applicant. The respondent’s primary argument for recusal was that the judge had made findings in the substantive proceedings, which she contended gave rise to an apprehension of bias. Regarding jurisdiction, the respondent argued that the issue required a jury trial and that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate costs.

Rees J dismissed the application for recusal, finding no apprehension of bias in the judge hearing the costs application. Her Honour also found that the court had jurisdiction to hear the costs application, noting that there is no trial by jury in the Family Court and that the costs of the substantive proceedings had not yet been determined. The application for costs was dismissed, as the respondent’s application was motivated by her perception of the children’s best interests and she could not be said to have been wholly unsuccessful.

Consequently, the respondent’s oral application for recusal was dismissed, as was the applicant’s Application for Costs and the respondent’s response.