Yu v Yu (No 2)

The case of Yu v Yu (No 2) involved a dispute between the parties over an application for indemnity costs. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The applicant sought indemnity costs on the basis that the respondent’s opposition to a motion had no reasonable prospects of success. The respondent argued that they had articulated their grounds prior to the hearing, but the court found that the grounds of argument were not clearly articulated.

The court was required to decide whether the respondent’s opposition to the motion had any reasonable prospects of success, and whether the grounds of argument were clearly articulated prior to the hearing. The court considered that the respondent’s opposition had no reasonable prospects of success, as the arguments relied upon were rejected during the hearing. However, the court also found that the grounds of argument were not clearly articulated prior to the hearing, and as such, the application for indemnity costs was dismissed.

The court noted that it is important for parties to clearly articulate their grounds of argument prior to a hearing, particularly in matters involving an application for indemnity costs. The court emphasised that this is particularly important in cases where the applicant seeks to recover costs on the basis that the respondent’s opposition had no reasonable prospects of success. The court held that the failure to clearly articulate the grounds of argument prior to the hearing was a significant factor in the dismissal of the application.

The court dismissed the application for indemnity costs, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the application. The court did not make any further orders.