Stanton and Stanton (No. 2)

In *Stanton and Stanton (No. 2)*, Brown J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications for costs made by the husband following final property and parenting orders. The husband sought costs against the wife and also against the wife's solicitor, Mr Korfiatis, in relation to both the property and parenting applications. The wife did not seek costs against the husband.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the husband was entitled to an order for costs against the wife in relation to the property applications, and whether he was entitled to an order for costs against the wife's solicitor, Mr Korfiatis, in relation to either the property or parenting applications. The court was required to consider the provisions of section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975*, including the general rule that parties bear their own costs and the circumstances in which a court may depart from this rule, taking into account factors such as the financial circumstances of the parties, their conduct, and the success of their applications.

Regarding the parenting applications, the court found the husband's application for costs to be misconceived as the final parenting orders had dismissed all such applications and contained no provisions for costs. The court also examined the husband's claim for costs against the wife in relation to the property applications, which was largely based on an alleged settlement offer made in mid-2004. However, the court found no evidence of this offer, nor any basis to quantify it, and therefore dismissed the husband's application for costs against the wife. The court also dismissed the husband's application for costs against Mr Korfiatis, finding no justification for such an order, noting that the husband's complaints against the solicitor were largely related to the parenting proceedings and did not demonstrate misconduct or default of a serious nature warranting a costs order.

The court ordered that the husband's applications for costs against the wife and against Mr Korfiatis be dismissed.