Tatnall and Harthope (Costs)

In *Tatnall and Harthope (Costs)*, Rose J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application for costs following a contravention application. The proceedings involved a father and mother, with the mother seeking costs related to a contravention application filed on 9 November 2010, and also making an oral application for costs concerning a separate contravention application filed on 25 February 2011.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant the mother’s costs for the first contravention application, and whether to grant her oral application for costs in relation to the second contravention application. The court was required to assess the merits of each application and determine the appropriate orders regarding costs.

Rose J ordered that the father pay the mother’s costs of and incidental to the contravention application filed on 9 November 2010, but these costs were limited to the alleged contravention specified in paragraph seven of that application. The assessment of these costs was to be by agreement between the parties or, failing agreement, by taxation. The court dismissed the mother’s oral application for costs in respect of the contravention application filed on 25 February 2011.