Seidler and Seidler

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Seidler (the applicant wife) sought costs against Mr Seidler (the respondent husband) in property proceedings. The wife's application, presented in various alternative forms, sought costs on an indemnity basis down to an order for costs as agreed or assessed by the Court, and for costs to apply from the entire proceedings or, alternatively, from a date closer to the trial.

The court was required to determine whether circumstances justified an order for costs against the husband, and if so, from what date and on what basis. This involved considering the wife's offer of settlement made shortly before the trial, the husband's rejection of that offer, and the terms of the final orders made by the court.

Justice Forrest applied section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which establishes a general principle that parties bear their own costs but grants the court discretion to make orders for costs where circumstances justify it. The court must have regard to specific factors outlined in section 117(2A). In this instance, the court found that the husband's failure to accept the wife's settlement offer, which was almost identical to the final orders, was the most significant factor justifying a costs order. The court reasoned that the wife incurred costs from the time of the offer that would not have been necessary had the husband accepted it.

Consequently, the court ordered that the husband pay the wife's costs, calculated by reference to the Family Court Schedule of Costs, as agreed or assessed, from 17 June 2011, allowing a reasonable period for the husband to consider the offer. There was no order as to the costs of the hearing on that day.