Segur and Segur

The Family Court of Australia considered an application for costs following earlier parenting and property proceedings between Ms Segur (the wife) and Mr Segur (the husband). The dispute centred on whether the wife should pay some or all of the husband's costs, and on what basis, given the conduct of the parties during the proceedings.

The court was required to determine the extent to which the wife should contribute to the husband's costs, considering the provisions of section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and specifically section 117AB, which allows for costs orders where a party knowingly makes a false allegation or statement. The court also had to consider the financial circumstances of the parties, their conduct throughout the proceedings, and whether either party had been wholly unsuccessful. The husband sought costs on an indemnity basis, while the wife sought no order as to costs, save for her own costs of the costs application.

Justice Bennett found that section 117AB was engaged in relation to both the wife's pursuit of sexual abuse allegations, which she knew or ought to have known were false, and the husband's false denials of sexual relations post-separation. However, the court determined the wife's transgression to be significantly more serious. While acknowledging that neither party was wholly successful, the court found the husband was more successful. The court ordered that the wife pay the husband 25% of his costs incurred after 20 November 2009, excluding the costs of the hearing on 8 and 9 February 2010, which were to be paid in full by the wife. The court declined to certify for two counsel and did not order costs on an indemnity basis, finding that the husband's decision to retain two counsel was a personal choice and that the circumstances did not warrant departing from party-party costs.