W & S

This matter concerned an application by the mother for costs thrown away due to an adjournment of proceedings. The father had attended court, prepared to proceed, having received notice of the hearing date. However, the mother was unaware of the scheduled date and time, with the fault for this oversight lying with the Court itself. The proceedings were ultimately adjourned to a later date.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the costs incurred by the father due to the adjournment could be recovered under a specific provision of the relevant Act, which applied to "discontinued" proceedings. This required the Court to consider the meaning of "discontinuance" in the context of court proceedings and to distinguish it from an adjournment.

Guest J, referencing the decision in *Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, Re Forest v Forest*, held that the term "discontinuance" has a well-established meaning referring to proceedings that have commenced and then ceased before conclusion. This is distinct from an adjournment, which may occur before or after commencement. His Honour explained that discontinued proceedings typically involve costs that are entirely wasted and irrecoverable from the other party due to the need to recommence the action. In contrast, while adjournments can incur costs, it is less likely that substantial costs will be entirely duplicated, especially when no party is at fault. His Honour found that the present situation, where the proceedings were merely mentioned and stood down, did not constitute a discontinuance in the plain meaning of the term.