WGOC & GH and Anor

This matter concerned an appeal by the husband against a costs order made by a trial judge in family law proceedings. The wife was the respondent. The appeal was heard by Finn, Coleman, and May JJ.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law or in discretion by making a costs order against the husband. Specifically, the husband contended that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to make the costs order, that the judge erred in finding his conduct prolonged the trial, and that the findings regarding his lack of proper disclosure and concealment of assets were contrary to the evidence. The husband also argued that even without his alleged conduct, significant matters would have remained in dispute, and the trial judge failed to consider the adjournment of a contravention application.

The Full Court found that the trial judge's discretion to order costs was not improperly exercised. The court noted that the trial judge's decision to order costs against the husband was primarily influenced by the husband's misleading conduct in denying an interest in a particular unit, when clear findings were ultimately made that he did have such an interest. The court reiterated that the law governing the appeal was not in doubt and that the wife's submissions provided a comprehensive review of the relevant authorities. Having already rejected the husband's challenges to the trial judge's discretion in the substantive property settlement proceedings, and with the children's proceedings not being challenged, the court found the husband's task in appealing the costs order to be significantly more difficult. The court considered the matters raised in the husband's submissions rather than addressing each ground of appeal individually, concluding that none of the assertions advanced a challenge to the trial judge's exercise of discretion.

The appeal was dismissed, and the husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs of the appeal.