Zistis v Zistis (No 2)

The case of Zistis v Zistis (No 2) involved a dispute between a husband and wife, both of whom were parties to the proceedings. The wife, the respondent, brought an application for an adjournment of a hearing in the Family Court of Australia. The husband, the applicant, did not appear to press the application, leading to its dismissal. The matter then proceeded to address issues related to costs, particularly whether costs should be ordered on an indemnity basis and the impact of intervention by additional parties on the applicant's costs.

The court was required to decide whether the general rule that costs follow the event applied, and if so, how this principle interacted with the concept of indemnity costs. Additionally, the court had to consider the implications of the intervention of additional parties on the costs incurred by the applicant. The legal issues centred on the proper allocation of costs in a multi-party dispute where one party's costs increased due to the intervention of other parties.

The court held that the general rule of costs following the event applies unless there are exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from this principle. The court found that the husband's costs increased significantly due to the intervention of additional parties, and thus, an indemnity costs order was appropriate. The court acknowledged that the wife's intervention was a factor that contributed to the increase in costs for the husband. As a result, the court ordered that the husband's costs be paid on an indemnity basis by the wife. This decision was grounded in the principle that costs should reflect the actual financial burden placed on a party as a result of the proceedings, particularly where the intervention of additional parties has played a role.