Weber and Lipson (No. 2)

In *Weber & Lipson (No. 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application for costs made by the wife following an interlocutory hearing. The dispute arose from the wife's application concerning the inspection of documents and the husband's response to that application. The hearing, presided over by Cronin J, involved the husband representing himself and the wife represented by counsel.

The court was required to determine whether there were circumstances justifying a departure from the general principle that each party bears their own costs, pursuant to section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to assess if the husband's conduct in relation to document disclosure and the overall progression of the litigation warranted an order for the husband to pay the wife's costs. The court also considered the recent Full Court decision in *Prantage & Prantage* [2013] FamCAFC 105 regarding indemnity costs.

Cronin J reasoned that the husband's failure to provide comprehensive disclosure of documents within his possession, power, or control, despite the wife's need to prepare adequately for trial, constituted a justifiable reason to depart from the usual costs rule. The court found that the husband's approach to discovery was misguided and that the wife had little choice but to bring the application to have these issues resolved. Furthermore, the husband had withdrawn his own application made during the hearing. Taking into account the matters set out in section 117(2A) of the Act, including the property dispute and the husband's status as a legal professional, the court concluded that the husband had been largely unsuccessful.

Consequently, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife's costs fixed in the sum of $3,000, to be paid within two months. The court noted that while the wife sought $6,000 in costs, the fixed sum was determined based on the relevant costs schedule and the circumstances of the case.