Vardakas and Kanavas (No 2)

In *Vardakas and Kanavas (No 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application for costs following the dismissal of the mother's application for contact with her daughter. The father sought costs on a solicitor/client basis, while the mother argued that such an order would be harsh, inequitable, unfair, and unjust. The mother's prior application had been dismissed because she failed to comply with prerequisite steps ordered by Dessau J in December 2011.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to deviate from the general rule that each party bears their own costs, as stipulated in section 117(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This required the court to consider the provisions of section 117(2) and the matters outlined in section 117(2A) of the Act, to determine if making a costs order against the mother, and specifically on a solicitor/client basis, would be just. The mother raised several historical contentions against the father, including alleged breaches of parenting orders and his mental health, while the father argued that the mother's application was misconceived and that her submissions did not address the relevant elements of section 117(2A).

Justice Wilson reasoned that while the mother's application was indeed doomed to fail due to her non-compliance with the orders of Dessau J, there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant a departure from section 117(1) of the *Family Law Act*. The court noted that the mother, though unrepresented, had not sought legal advice and had failed to comply with the prerequisite steps and the *Family Law Act* s 60I certification requirements. However, the judge found that imposing a costs order against the mother, let alone on a solicitor/client basis, would not be just in all the circumstances. The court emphasised that the mother must adhere to the stipulations in paragraph 10 of Dessau J's orders before bringing any future applications, warning that failure to do so could result in a costs order.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear his and her own costs of and incidental to the mother's dismissed application.