Although strictly speaking it is not a ‘costs jurisdiction’ Costs Orders are often made where the circumstances warrant doing so, such as where a party’s conduct has lengthened proceedings or a party has continued to litigate notwithstanding a plethora of evidence suggesting that it would be preferable not to do so. Clients should be encouraged to think commercially in those circumstances.
Adoption proceedings are not common. Blended families are very much the ‘norm’ and have been for many years but there can sometimes be compelling reasons for seeking an Order for adoption. However, even where one of the proposed adopting parents is the natural parent they still need to go through the process, that is to seek leave from the FCFCoA to adopt the said child and then proceed through the relevant state court.
Unfortunately, the penchant for appeals is not solely confined to self-represented litigants. Practitioners should not expend costs opposing technical filing arguments where the substantive impact on their client is negligible.
Where a party has exhausted multiple avenues of appeal, including an unsuccessful application for special leave to the High Court, and then fails to participate in the final hearing of their own volition, a subsequent Notice of Appeal challenging those final orders was summarily dismissed for failing to identify any appealable error. Costs orders were made.
A Notice of Appeal where the applicant fails to file written submissions and instead makes oral submissions about perceived bias, is unlikely to survive a show cause hearing. Grounds of appeal must actually address the legal requirements for leave, not merely catalogue grievances.
Meint & B Pty Ltd — If a party’s application seeks orders that infringe the rights of an intervener or directly contradict a shareholders agreement, that party should withdraw those defective parts promptly when invited to do so, as delay in doing so will not shield them from a significant costs order in favour of the intervener — here, $99,916.55 at trial and a further $15,000 on appeal.
Meint & Lyall — A single expert report that fails to engage with the terms of a shareholders agreement will carry limited weight where other shareholders hold the power to set the sale price of the departing shareholder’s interest.
The Court cannot simply attribute no value to a superannuation fund where (allebit out of date) expert valuation evidence exists – doing so in this case, resulted in remittal. Practitioners should ensure valuation evidence is current and complete at trial, as gaps in evidence create appellate risk for both parties.
Frost & Frost (No 2) — Where a father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to a child, the Court will order no time even where supervised time is sought, and family violence will be taken into account as a factor in both contributions and the s79(5) adjustment. The parties’ failed attempt to discharge the single expert ultimately worked against them — having been unable to agree on a replacement valuation, the Court had no choice but to order the sale of the property.
The first was a Division 1 First Instance decision of His Honour, Schonell J, on
22 December 2025 where the applicant wife/mother filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking to discharge the jointly appointed single expert real estate valuer and instead appoint a different valuer of her choosing. The property had already been valued in May 2024 and that valuation required an update prior to the scheduled February 2026 final hearing.
Stay sharp with the latest family law case insights. This space brings together real-world examples, commentary and practical takeaways from recent decisions in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
From enforcement missteps to representation pitfalls, these case updates are a quick way to reflect, review, and refine your practice – so you can avoid the mistakes others make.
Although strictly speaking it is not a ‘costs jurisdiction’ Costs Orders are often made where the circumstances warrant doing so, such as where a party’s conduct has lengthened proceedings or a party has continued to litigate notwithstanding a plethora of evidence suggesting that it would be preferable not to do so. Clients should be encouraged to think commercially in those circumstances.
Adoption proceedings are not common. Blended families are very much the ‘norm’ and have been for many years but there can sometimes be compelling reasons for seeking an Order for adoption. However, even where one of the proposed adopting parents is the natural parent they still need to go through the process, that is to seek leave from the FCFCoA to adopt the said child and then proceed through the relevant state court.
Unfortunately, the penchant for appeals is not solely confined to self-represented litigants. Practitioners should not expend costs opposing technical filing arguments where the substantive impact on their client is negligible.
Where a party has exhausted multiple avenues of appeal, including an unsuccessful application for special leave to the High Court, and then fails to participate in the final hearing of their own volition, a subsequent Notice of Appeal challenging those final orders was summarily dismissed for failing to identify any appealable error. Costs orders were made.
A Notice of Appeal where the applicant fails to file written submissions and instead makes oral submissions about perceived bias, is unlikely to survive a show cause hearing. Grounds of appeal must actually address the legal requirements for leave, not merely catalogue grievances.
Meint & B Pty Ltd — If a party’s application seeks orders that infringe the rights of an intervener or directly contradict a shareholders agreement, that party should withdraw those defective parts promptly when invited to do so, as delay in doing so will not shield them from a significant costs order in favour of the intervener — here, $99,916.55 at trial and a further $15,000 on appeal.
Meint & Lyall — A single expert report that fails to engage with the terms of a shareholders agreement will carry limited weight where other shareholders hold the power to set the sale price of the departing shareholder’s interest.
The Court cannot simply attribute no value to a superannuation fund where (allebit out of date) expert valuation evidence exists – doing so in this case, resulted in remittal. Practitioners should ensure valuation evidence is current and complete at trial, as gaps in evidence create appellate risk for both parties.
Frost & Frost (No 2) — Where a father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to a child, the Court will order no time even where supervised time is sought, and family violence will be taken into account as a factor in both contributions and the s79(5) adjustment. The parties’ failed attempt to discharge the single expert ultimately worked against them — having been unable to agree on a replacement valuation, the Court had no choice but to order the sale of the property.
The first was a Division 1 First Instance decision of His Honour, Schonell J, on
22 December 2025 where the applicant wife/mother filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking to discharge the jointly appointed single expert real estate valuer and instead appoint a different valuer of her choosing. The property had already been valued in May 2024 and that valuation required an update prior to the scheduled February 2026 final hearing.
Stay sharp with the latest family law case insights. This space brings together real-world examples, commentary and practical takeaways from recent decisions in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
From enforcement missteps to representation pitfalls, these case updates are a quick way to reflect, review, and refine your practice – so you can avoid the mistakes others make.
