Tritton and Poyzer (No 2)

In *Tritton and Poyzer (No 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered competing applications for costs between the husband and wife. The wife sought costs on an indemnity basis, alleging the husband had failed to make full and frank disclosure. Conversely, the husband sought a portion of his own costs, arguing that certain issues raised by the wife at trial were unnecessary.

The central legal issue before Dawe J was whether the circumstances of the case justified making a costs order, and if so, in what form. This required the court to consider the factors outlined in section 117(2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly in light of the parties' respective allegations regarding disclosure and the conduct of the litigation. The court also had to determine if either party had been wholly unsuccessful, which would influence the approach to costs.

Dawe J found that the circumstances did justify making a costs order in favour of the wife. While neither party was wholly unsuccessful, the court determined that the husband's conduct warranted a costs order against him. Consequently, the husband was ordered to pay a portion of the wife's costs. The husband's own application for a portion of his costs was dismissed. The husband was ordered to pay the wife the sum of $200,000 on account of her costs within three months.