WGOC and GH and Anor (No. 3)

This matter concerned an application by the husband (the applicant) to lift an injunction that prevented the release of his share of the proceeds from the sale of a property known as the A Unit. The injunction had been ordered pending the determination of all issues relating to costs sought by the Children's Representative and the wife. The husband had already been ordered to pay the wife's costs of an appeal, amounting to almost $50,000.

The court was required to determine whether to lift the existing injunction and, in relation to the costs sought by the second respondent (the Children's Representative), whether those costs should be paid on an indemnity basis as submitted by the second respondent, or on a party and party basis as submitted by the husband. The court also considered the general principles for making costs orders under section 117(2A) of the relevant legislation, which requires regard to the financial circumstances of the parties, legal aid, the conduct of the parties, whether proceedings were necessitated by failure to comply with previous orders, whether a party was wholly unsuccessful, and any settlement offers.

In relation to the husband's application to lift the injunction, the court noted that the wife had only received $18,000 from her funds, with the remainder absorbed by legal fees. The court considered that neither party had been "wholly unsuccessful" in the proceedings, describing the outcome as a "draw" between the husband and wife. Consequently, the court made no order for costs between the husband and wife, directing that each party bear their own costs for the interim hearing. However, regarding the costs sought by the second respondent, the court ordered that the applicant (the husband) pay the second respondent's costs on an indemnity basis.