ZHOU & ZONG

This matter concerned a family law property dispute with a small asset pool, where the trial was adjourned due to the applicant's solicitor's failure to prepare adequately. The respondent sought costs thrown away as a result of the adjournment.

The court was required to determine whether to grant leave for the applicant to pursue allegations of fraud, trust disputes, and intentional unemployment to avoid child support, and whether to order the applicant's solicitor to personally pay the respondent's costs incurred due to the trial's inability to proceed.

His Honour Judge Wilson found that the applicant's solicitor, Mr. Guo, had failed to file an outline of case, arrange an interpreter for his client, and confer with the respondent's counsel regarding the conduct of the trial. These failures, coupled with Mr. Guo's lack of preparedness and inability to provide clear estimates for the trial duration, meant the trial could not commence as scheduled. The court applied principles of case management, emphasising the expectation for legal representatives to act cooperatively and efficiently. It was held that Mr. Guo's conduct constituted a "clear case" for a personal costs order under section 117(2A) of the Family Law Act, given the significant costs incurred by the respondent due to the solicitor's lack of preparation and the modest value of the asset pool.

The court ordered that the applicant's solicitors pay $5,000 in respect of the respondent's costs thrown away concerning the aborted appearance on 9 November 2018. Furthermore, the applicant was ordered to file and serve a statement of claim with proper particulars if she wished to pursue allegations of fraud or other serious matters, and an outline of her case by specified dates.