Stinson & Goldsmith

In the matter of *Stinson & Goldsmith*, Mr Stinson (the applicant husband) sought costs from Ms Goldsmith (the respondent wife) following an adjournment of a trial. The husband did not seek costs on an indemnity basis but rather a specific sum exceeding ordinary party and party costs. The proceedings had a complex history, including an appeal and remittal for rehearing, before being transferred to the Federal Circuit Court.

The central legal issue before Carew J was whether to exercise the court's discretion to order the wife to contribute a fixed sum towards the husband's legal costs, and if so, what that sum should be. This arose in the context of the husband's concerns about the wife's preparedness for trial, including delays in providing updated valuations, her failure to clearly specify the orders sought, and the late introduction of allegations of family violence and a potential *Kennon* argument.

Carew J reasoned that the wife's conduct had caused significant disruption and potential prejudice to the husband, necessitating the adjournment of the trial. The court found that the wife's failure to clearly articulate her sought orders, despite multiple amended responses and arguments to the contrary, demonstrated a lack of preparedness and contributed to the husband's concerns. While the immediate issues regarding valuations and the *Kennon* argument were addressed, the court considered the overall impact of the wife's actions on the efficient conduct of the proceedings.

Consequently, the court ordered the wife to contribute a fixed sum of $33,000 towards the husband's legal costs, to be paid within 30 days of the order.