VASSALO & GRAHAM

In *Vassalo & Graham*, the wife sought costs for enforcement proceedings she initiated due to the husband's non-compliance with previous property settlement orders. The matter came before Dawe J in the Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue was whether the circumstances warranted the making of a costs order in favour of the wife, specifically considering the factors outlined in section 117(2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court was required to determine if the husband's conduct justified ordering him to pay the wife's costs.

Dawe J reasoned that the husband's compliance with the property settlement orders did not occur until after the wife had commenced enforcement proceedings. This delay and the necessity for the wife to take legal action to secure compliance were significant factors in the court's determination. Applying the principles of section 117(2A), which allows for costs orders in circumstances where a party has not been successful in a proceeding or where it is just and equitable to do so, the court found that the husband's actions justified an order for costs.

Consequently, Dawe J ordered that the husband pay the wife's costs of and incidental to the enforcement proceedings filed on 11 January 2011, with costs to be agreed within twenty-eight days or taxed thereafter. All other proceedings were dismissed.