Weiman and Paige (Costs)

In the matter of *Weiman & Paige (Costs)*, the Family Court of Australia considered applications for costs made by both the wife and the husband following property proceedings. The wife sought an order that the husband pay her costs incurred from 19 April 2012 onwards, while the husband sought an order that the wife pay his costs from 6 May 2010, or alternatively, specific costs related to a single expert valuation and other contested issues.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of costs pursuant to section 117(2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This required the court to consider whether each party ought to have accepted offers of settlement made in writing, the financial circumstances of the parties, and the conduct of the parties in relation to the proceedings, including allegations of non-disclosure and the timing of settlement offers. The court also had to assess the reasonableness of the parties' positions regarding the resolution of property matters in conjunction with parenting disputes.

The court reasoned that while the wife's offer of settlement on 19 April 2012 was marginally better than the final orders she received, she ought not to succeed in recovering costs from that date because the husband had made an earlier offer of settlement on 6 May 2010 which the wife should have accepted. The court found that the husband's conduct in delaying property discussions until parenting issues were resolved was not unreasonable in the circumstances, as the parties' responsibilities towards their children are a significant factor in property division. Furthermore, the court accepted the husband's evidence regarding his financial position and the nature of his business income, and did not find that the wife's allegations of non-disclosure were substantiated to the extent that they warranted a costs order in her favour. The court also noted that the husband had no funds available to meet a costs order against him.

Consequently, the wife's application for costs was refused and dismissed. The court ordered that the wife pay the husband the sum of $6,000 by way of costs.