Suffolk and Suffolk

In *Suffolk and Suffolk*, O’Reilly J considered an application for costs following a determination regarding the validity of a financial agreement made between the parties on 10 August 2004, pursuant to section 90G(1)(e) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The dispute centred on the costs associated with the determination of this validity issue, including costs related to a mediation held on 9 April 2009.

The primary legal issue before the court was the assessment and allocation of costs. Specifically, the court was required to determine the basis upon which the wife's costs should be paid by the husband, including the application of a solicitor-client basis with a potential uplift fee, and the allocation of costs for specific hearing days and a costs application. The court also had to consider whether it was reasonable for the parties to have engaged both Senior and Junior Counsel for the validity issue and mediation.

O’Reilly J ordered that the husband pay 95% of the wife's costs of and incidental to the issue of the validity of the financial agreement and the related mediation. These costs were to be calculated on a solicitor-client basis, excluding unreasonable costs, and subject to an assessed uplift fee as ordinarily chargeable for comparable litigious cases on a no win no fee retainer, or a 25% uplift if no standard fee was recognised. The husband was also ordered to pay the wife's costs of her costs application, excluding costs from 20 October 2009, on a party-party basis. The wife was ordered to pay the husband's costs for 20 October 2009, with these costs to be set off against the amounts the husband owed the wife. The court certified that it was reasonable for both parties to have engaged Senior and Junior Counsel for the validity issue and mediation. Finally, the property proceedings under section 79 were stayed pending the determination of the husband's appeal.