Sangara & Hamwood

This case concerned an appeal against costs orders made by a Federal Magistrate. The appellant, the father, argued that the Federal Magistrate was *functus officio* and therefore precluded from hearing a subsequent costs application after making orders dismissing all applications at the conclusion of defended proceedings. The father also challenged the basis for the three costs orders made, contending the Magistrate erred in departing from section 117(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975* and in making lump sum costs orders based on Schedule 1 of the *Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001*. He further argued that the Magistrate improperly included travel expenses in one order and "double counted" costs for unsuccessful contravention proceedings heard concurrently with the costs application.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Federal Magistrate had the power to correct an apparent oversight in failing to deal with costs applications, and if so, whether Rule 16.05(2) of the *Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001* was the appropriate mechanism. The court also had to determine if the Magistrate erred in the exercise of discretion when making the various costs orders, specifically concerning the quantum and the inclusion of certain expenses. Finally, the court considered the costs of the appeal itself.

The court held that the doctrine of *functus officio* did not apply in these circumstances, and it was appropriate for the Federal Magistrate to apply Rule 16.05(2) to correct the error of overlooking the costs applications. The court reasoned that the rule permitted the correction of accidental slips or errors and that a broad interpretation was warranted, particularly in light of the overriding purpose of the rules to achieve justice. The court found no error in the Federal Magistrate's exercise of discretion in making the costs orders, concluding that the basis for each order was established and that the inclusion of travel expenses and the handling of the contravention proceedings were appropriate.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The father was ordered to pay the mother's costs of the appeal, to be agreed upon or assessed in accordance with Chapter 19 of the *Family Law Rules 2004*.