YAO & MEI

In *Yao & Mei* [2020] FamCA 1117, the Family Court of Australia considered a costs application made by the husband, Mr Yao, seeking an order that the wife, Ms Mei, pay his costs of and incidental to the Initiating Application filed by the wife on 19 September 2017. The husband sought costs on a party/party basis in the sum of approximately $128,000. The wife, who was unrepresented in the costs proceedings, sought that the applications be dismissed and that each party bear their own costs.

The court was required to determine whether costs orders should be made against the wife and, if so, whether those costs should be awarded as a lump sum payment. In making this determination, the court was guided by section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which outlines the court's power to make costs orders and the factors to be considered. These factors include the financial circumstances of the parties, their conduct in relation to the proceedings, whether a party has been wholly unsuccessful, and any offers to settle.

Justice Benjamin applied the principles of section 117(2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), noting that no single factor dictates the outcome and that the court has a broad discretion. Having considered the evidence and submissions, including the wife's unrepresented status, the court found that circumstances justified making a costs order. The court ordered that the respondent wife pay the applicant husband legal costs in the sum of $76,800, payable within ninety days. Interest was to accrue on this sum from ninety days after the order date unless paid. These costs were to include the costs of the costs application itself, and the court noted that it was reasonable to engage counsel for the costs application.