Woodham and Woodham and Ors

This matter came before the Family Court of Australia concerning an application for costs. The applicant, Ms Woodham, sought orders against the respondent, Mr Woodham, and also against Ms Gleeson in her capacity as executrix of the estate of the late Ms P Woodham, and against the trustees of certain trusts. The dispute centred not on the quantum of costs, but on whether costs orders should be made or reserved.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there were circumstances justifying a departure from the general principle that parties in family law litigation bear their own costs, as stipulated by section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). If such circumstances were found, the court would then consider the matters set out in section 117(2A) of the Act.

Justice Cronin found that circumstances did justify a departure from the usual costs rule. His Honour noted that the wife had, through her counsel, made a concession that an order for costs should be made. The court observed that a directions hearing had been set to prepare for a final trial, and a period was intended for parties to finalise matters. However, the wife provided an unsealed application to parties who were intended to be joined, one of whom was not ultimately joined. This application was not proceeded with. While not finding the application incompetent, the court determined that the failure to complete the intended steps constituted a circumstance justifying an order for costs.

Consequently, the court ordered that the wife pay the costs of Ms Gleeson and Mr D (presumably referring to the trustees, though not explicitly named in the judgment text) in a total sum of $7,876, and the costs of the husband fixed at $3,862. These sums were to be paid within 60 days. The outstanding applications were adjourned for the determination of any remaining interlocutory issues.