Stoian & Fiening (Costs)

In the matter of *Stoian & Fiening (Costs)*, Kent J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application for costs following substantive proceedings. The dispute concerned the wife's entitlement to costs, including an order for indemnity costs in relation to a specific issue concerning a boat, and the appropriate basis and quantum of those costs.

The court was required to determine whether the husband's conduct warranted an order for indemnity costs concerning the issue of the Type O boat. Further, the court had to consider the circumstances under which an order for costs in a fixed sum, rather than by assessment, ought to be made, in light of Rule 19.18(1)(a) of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth) and the overarching purpose of the Rules. The court also had to consider whether a prior offer of settlement was sufficient to justify an order for indemnity costs.

Kent J ordered that the husband pay the wife's costs on an indemnity basis concerning the issue of the boat, encompassing costs related to disclosure, communications, affidavits, specific hearings, and the sale of the boat. The wife's costs for the substantive proceedings from a specified date and for the costs application itself were to be paid on a party and party basis. The court certified the wife's engagement of senior counsel. Crucially, pursuant to Rule 19.18(1)(a), the total costs ordered were fixed at $80,000. The husband was ordered to pay $50,000 within sixty days, with the remaining $30,000 to be paid in equal monthly instalments over twenty-four months, commencing on 2 February 2015, with interest on the outstanding balance.