STOPFORD MALLOY & MALLOY

In *Stopford Malloy & Malloy*, the wife sought costs against the husband following the dismissal of his application to vary or discharge spousal maintenance orders. The original spousal maintenance orders, made by consent in October 2015, required the husband to pay the wife $2,000 per week, plus up to $650 per week for her rental accommodation and any bond payment. The husband's father and his associated companies, the Malloy Group, were also parties to the proceedings and were acknowledged as being financially well-resourced and a source of support for the husband.

The legal issue before the court was whether the husband should be ordered to pay the wife's costs in relation to his unsuccessful application to vary or discharge the spousal maintenance orders. This application had been dismissed in a primary judgment delivered on 7 July 2020. The husband opposed any costs orders being made against him.

The court noted the history of the husband's repeated attempts to vary the spousal maintenance orders since March 2016, all of which had been unsuccessful. These attempts included applications dismissed by Dawe J, Bryant CJ, and an appeal to the Full Court, which confirmed that there had been no sufficient change in circumstances to justify a variation. The husband's most recent application, heard by Tree J in 2019, was not pressed, with his senior counsel conceding that such an application would have constituted an abuse of process, by which time the husband was in significant arrears of spousal maintenance.

Given the history of unsuccessful applications and the concession that a further application constituted an abuse of process, the court found that the husband's opposition to costs was without merit. The court ordered the husband to pay the wife's costs of and incidental to his application to vary or discharge the spousal maintenance orders.