ZHOU & MEI

In *Zhou & Mei* [2020] FamCA 1116, the Family Court of Australia considered a costs application made by the husband's mother, Ms Zhou, who sought an order that the wife, Ms Mei, pay her costs of and incidental to the wife's Initiating Application filed on 19 September 2017. The proceedings involved Ms Mei, her husband Mr Yao, and Mr Yao's mother, Ms Zhou. The substantive proceedings had concluded, and this matter concerned the costs associated with the wife's initial application.

The court was required to determine two principal questions: first, whether costs orders should be made in favour of Ms Zhou and the husband, and second, whether those costs should be awarded as lump sum payments. The wife, who was unrepresented in these costs proceedings, contended that no costs orders should be made, though she made no specific submissions regarding the lump sum aspect of the orders.

Justice Benjamin noted that the general rule under section 117(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) is that parties bear their own costs, but this is subject to the court's discretion under section 117(2) to make such orders as it considers just, having regard to various factors outlined in section 117(2A). These factors include the financial circumstances of the parties, their conduct in the proceedings, and whether any party was wholly unsuccessful. The court emphasised that no single factor is paramount and that any one factor can be sufficient grounds for making a costs order. The court also considered the distinction between different types of costs orders available under the Act.

The court ordered that Ms Mei pay Ms Zhou the sum of $170,000 by way of party/party costs within ninety days of the order. Interest was to accrue on this sum if not paid within that period. These costs were to include the costs of the costs application itself, and the court found it reasonable to engage counsel for the costs application pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth).