SKINNER & CLUNY

In *Skinner & Cluny*, the Family Court of Australia considered a husband's application alleging contravention of court orders by the wife, which was ultimately dismissed. Following this unsuccessful contravention application, the wife sought indemnity costs from the husband.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the husband had contravened the relevant court orders, and if not, whether the circumstances warranted an order for the husband to pay the wife's costs on an indemnity basis (solicitor and client costs).

Young J found that the husband had not established the alleged contraventions by the wife. In relation to costs, his Honour declined to make an order for indemnity costs. The court applied the general principle that costs follow the event, but noted that an award of indemnity costs is exceptional and requires specific circumstances to be demonstrated, which were not present in this instance.

Consequently, the court made no order as to costs.