Colgate-Palmolive Co and Anor v Cussons Pty Ltd

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Peak & Peak has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. The final hearing of the contested financial proceedings as between the applicant wife, Ms Peak and the respondent husband, Mr Peak, was listed to commence on 13 October 2025.
2. On 9 October 2025 the husband filed an Application in a Proceeding in which he sought orders that:-
   • The final hearing listed to commence on 13 October 2025 be vacated and adjourned to a date to be fixed not before 8 December 2025;
   • Order 8.1 of the orders dated 15 October 2024, being a dollar-for-dollar litigation funding order, be discharged; and
   • That injunctions made by Judge Dunkley on 17 May 2024 be varied to permit the husband to enter into a commercial loan facility to borrow funds to repay debts due to the Australian Taxation Office by an entity of which he is a director, H Pty Ltd.
3. The husband's application was heard and determined on the first day of trial, being 13 October 2025. That day, the wife was represented by counsel and the husband appeared in person. Upon hearing submissions, I made orders adjourning the final hearing to 16 February 2026. I also made orders for disclosure and further trial directions with respect to the adjourned final hearing, those directions made in circumstances where the husband had not complied with trial directions previously made requiring him to file trial affidavit material and an updated financial statement. The husband's Application in a Proceeding was otherwise dismissed.
4. The wife sought orders for costs as against the husband. It is her case that she incurred significant costs in the preparation of the matter for final hearing. Given that the husband was self-represented I made the following orders with respect to the filing of submissions in relation to the wife's costs application:-

1. The Applicant's costs of and incidental to this listing be reserved with such Application to be heard and determined on the papers as follows:

(a) Within 14 days of the date of these orders, the Applicant file and serve written submissions in support of her application costs; and > > (b) Within 14 days of receipt of the Applicant's written submissions, the First Respondent file and serve written submissions in response to the Applicant's written submissions.

5. In compliance with those orders, the wife filed submissions as to costs on 27 October 2025. She seeks a cost order in her favour against the husband as follows:

2.1 In the sum of $186,867.05 with such costs calculated on an indemnity basis in accordance with Schedule A filed with these submissions; or in the alternative,

2.2 In the sum of $130,806.94 with such cots [sic] calculated on a party-party basis in accordance with Schedule A filed with these submissions; or in the alternative,

2.3 In the sum of $100,980.93 with such costs calculated pursuant to the scale of costs set out at Schedule 3 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 ("the FCFCOA Rules")

1. The husband has filed no submissions in compliance with my orders of 13 October 2025.
2. These are my reasons for judgment with respect to the wife's costs application.

1. The question of costs is governed by s 114UB(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") which provides:-

Subject to subsection (2) of this section, subsection 102QAB(6) and sections 114UD and 114UE, each party to proceedings under this Act is to bear the party's own costs.

1. On that basis, the general rule in proceedings under the Act is that, subject to the provisions of s 114UB(2), the parties to a proceeding shall bear their own costs of that proceeding.
2. Section 114UB(2) of the Act provides that:-

If, in proceedings under this Act, the court is of the opinion that there are circumstances that justify it in doing so, the court may, subject to subsection (3) of this section, sections 114UC and 114UD and the applicable Rules of Court, make any order for costs and security for costs that the court considers just, whether by way of interlocutory order or otherwise.

Note 1: For other provisions about the award of costs by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), see paragraphs 69(4)(d) and (e) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021.

Note 2: For other provisions about the award of costs by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), see paragraphs 192(4)(d) and (e) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021.

Note 3: See also subsections 96(4) to (6) of this Act.

1. Section 114UB(3) of the Act provides that in determining what, if any, order should be made under subsection (2), the Court must have regard to the following:-

(a) the financial circumstances of each of the parties to the proceedings;

(b) whether any party to the proceedings is in receipt of assistance by way of legal aid in respect of the proceedings and, if so, the terms of the grant of that assistance to that party;

(c) the conduct of the parties to the proceedings in relation to the proceedings including, without limiting paragraphs (a) and (b), the conduct of the parties in relation to pleadings, particulars, discovery, inspection, directions to answer questions, admissions of facts, production of documents and similar matters, and in relation to their duty of disclosure under subsection 71B(1), 90RI(1) or 90YJA(1);

(d) whether the proceedings were necessitated by the failure of a party to the proceedings to comply with previous orders of the court;

(e) whether any party to the proceedings has been wholly unsuccessful in the proceedings;

(f) whether a party to the proceedings has made an offer in writing to the other party to the proceedings to settle the proceedings and the terms of any such offer; and

(g) such other matters as the court considers relevant.

1. Should it be determined that it is just to make an order as to costs, costs are not awarded to punish the unsuccessful party but rather are compensatory in the sense that they are awarded to ameliorate the expense of the successful party resulting from having been required to participate in the proceedings.
2. The discretion afforded by s 114UB of the Act is broad and the relevant factors contained in s 114UB(3) are not to be read in a restrictive way; any one of those factors may found an order for costs, but all factors must be taken into account and balanced (I and I [1995] FamCA 80; (1995) FLC 92-625).
3. Section 114UB(5) of the Act incorporates the same powers to make a costs order on a particular basis as is contained in Part 12.6 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ("the Rules") at r 12.17(1), and provides:

(5) The court may order that a party is entitled to costs:

(a) of a specific amount; or

(b) as assessed on a particular basis (for example, party and party, solicitor and client or indemnity); or

(c) to be calculated in accordance with the method stated in the order; or

(d) for part of the proceedings, or part of an amount assessed in accordance with the applicable Rules of Court.

1. Rule 12.17(3) sets out matters that may be considered in the calculation of costs, providing that:-

(3) In making an order under subrule (1), the court may consider the following:

(a) the importance, complexity or difficulty of the issues;

(b) the reasonableness of each party's behaviour in the proceeding including by having regard to the matters set out in subrule 12.08(2);

(c) the rates ordinarily payable to lawyers in comparable proceedings;

(d) whether a lawyer's conduct has been improper, unfair, unreasonable or disproportionate;

(e) the time properly spent on the proceedings, or in complying with pre-action procedures;

(f) whether expenses (paid or payable) are fair, reasonable and proportionate.

1. Having regard to the above matters, I consider that I hold a broad discretion in respect of matters relating to any costs orders.

1. The wife was born in 1984 and is aged 41 years.
2. The husband was born in 1978 and is aged 48 years.
3. The parties married in 2004 and separated in December 2023. There are two children of the marriage, aged 11 and nine years, one of whom has severe autism and an intellectual disability and requires constant care.
4. The wife commenced proceedings seeking financial orders in Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in April 2024. Since that time, there have been no less than 14 court events with respect to the parties' competing applications. That this is so has in large part been due to the failure of the husband to comply with orders and directions of the Court; this has resulted in delay in the progress of the proceedings and ultimately led to the filing of enforcement applications by the wife.
5. The parties executed a parenting plan in relation to the care arrangements for the children in April 2025.
6. The parties' competing applications for final orders with respect to property were listed for hearing to commence on 13 October 2025, as a five-day matter. The trial directions for that hearing were made by Chief Justice Alstergren on 1 April 2025. Order 3 of those trial directions provided for the husband to file and serve any Amended Response upon which he relied, a trial affidavit, witness affidavits and an updated Financial Statement, such documents to be filed no later than 28 days prior to the commencement of the trial. That order was not complied with.
7. Further, Order 13 of those orders required that each party file a case outline document no later than seven days prior to the trial date. Again, the husband did not comply with that order.
8. Although the husband was represented by J Lawyers in the period leading up to the final hearing, on 22 September 2025, some 19 days before the first day of trial, those solicitors filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act.
9. On 9 October 2025, being four days prior to the commencement of the hearing, the husband filed his Application in a Proceeding. Ostensibly, that application was prepared by the husband. However, the affidavit filed by him in support of the application was prepared by Mr K, the lawyer representing the husband (or his entities) in separate Federal Court proceedings. Notwithstanding the assistance provided by that lawyer to the husband for the purposes of his adjournment application, the husband represented himself at the hearing in relation to that application.
10. On 13 October 2025 the final hearing was adjourned; the husband's applications seeking discharge of litigation funding orders and variation of an injunction were otherwise dismissed.
11. It is against that backdrop that the wife now seeks that the husband pay her costs thrown away in respect of the adjourned hearing, such costs to be paid on an indemnity basis.
12. I now turn to the considerations identified in s 114UB(3) of the Act.

(a) The financial circumstances of each party to the proceedings

1. The wife submits that the husband's financial situation is far superior to hers, relying upon the fact that the husband continues to operate the three major income-earning assets of the parties, being:-
   • L Business;
   • M Business; and
   • The business known as H Pty Ltd.
2. In contrast, it was submitted that the wife has limited income-earning opportunities, being the primary carer for the parties' two children, one of whom requires significant care due to autism and a severe intellectual disability. Further, it was submitted that the husband's child support payments are received by the wife irregularly, and only after payment notices have issued by Services Australia with respect to substantial child support arrears. In addition, it was submitted that otherwise, the wife is reliant upon the generosity of her family.
3. The wife also placed reliance upon the affidavit filed on behalf of the husband on 9 October 2025 in support of his application for an adjournment. At paragraph 22 of that affidavit, the husband deposed as follows:-

Provided the "dollar-for-dollar" costs order is discharged, I expect to be in a position to fund solicitors' fees and disbursements including briefing counsel to prepare for trial with the help of my family.

1. It was submitted, and I accept having regard to that evidence, that the husband does have capacity to access funds to meet his own legal expenses.
2. Having regard to that evidence, I am satisfied that the husband has financial capacity to meet an order for costs. Even were that not the case, it is well settled that impecuniosity is not a bar to the making of a costs order (per Nada & Nettle (Costs) [2014] FamCAFC 207; (2014) FLC 93-612 at [11]).

(b) Whether any party to the proceeding is receiving assistance by way of legal aid in respect of the proceedings

1. Neither the husband nor the wife is in receipt of legal aid.

**(c) The conduct of the parties to the proceedings in relation to the proceedings

(d) Whether the proceedings were necessitated by the failure of a party to the proceedings to comply with previous orders of the Court**

1. It was submitted on behalf of the wife, and I accept, that the final hearing was adjourned due to the failure by the husband to comply with orders for the preparation of trial documents for the final hearing.
2. The husband's non-compliance with Court orders has been a feature of the proceedings (as detailed in my earlier decision, Peak & Peak [2025] FedCFamC1F 295) and is ongoing.
3. The husband filed no trial documents or case outline document in compliance with the orders of 13 October 2025.
4. His application to adjourn the proceedings was made late in the day and only after the wife had complied with her obligations pursuant to those trial directions.
5. Further, it was submitted, and I accept, that the husband has failed to make disclosure of relevant documents. As a result, on 13 October 2025 I made orders for specific disclosure by the husband.
6. It was submitted on behalf of the wife that the husband has engaged in conduct with a view to obstruct and frustrate the progress of the proceedings. In support of that submission, reliance was placed on the manner in which the husband elected to conduct his application for an adjournment filed 9 October 2025. It was submitted that in making that application, the husband proffered no explanation for his failure to engage with his obligations to prepare for the final hearing listed to commence on 13 October 2025. I accept that submission.
7. The wife also raised concerns as to the manner in which the husband's former solicitors have conducted the case on his behalf. The obligations placed upon the husband by the "dollar-for-dollar" order made by consent on 17 February 2025 required that for every dollar that the husband pays towards his legal costs and disbursements in respect of these proceedings the husband irrevocably authorises and directs his legal representatives to forthwith hold such funds in trust for both parties and pay or cause to be paid one half of each dollar towards the wife's legal costs and disbursements via her lawyers. Further, paragraph 3(c) of those orders provided that the husband irrevocably authorises and directs his lawyers to provide to the wife copies of all invoices, trust account statements and receipts for legal costs and disbursements paid by or on his behalf within seven days of payment.
8. The husband's former solicitors, J Lawyers , filed a Notice of Address for Service on 20 March 2025. They filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act on 22 September 2025. Hence, they were his solicitors on the record for a period of approximately six months during 2025.
9. In accordance with the subpoena to produce documents served upon that firm, documents were produced with respect to their engagement on behalf of the husband during the period in which the "dollar-for-dollar" order was extant. Notwithstanding the terms of the order, and their engagement for a period of six months after it was made, the documents produced by that firm indicate that it has accrued no work in progress in respect of professional services for the husband during that period. Further, that firm has not issued an invoice to the husband in respect of these proceedings for any professional fees provided by any member of that firm. The only invoices issued were with respect to disbursements only. The documents produced indicate that funds held on trust by that firm for the husband in the husband's family law ledger have been applied to payment of invoices rendered by that firm with respect to the representation of the husband in intervention order proceedings.
10. The wife's solicitor, Mr Pantellis deposes in his affidavit filed 27 October 2025 that since J Lawyers have represented the husband, the wife's solicitors have:-
    • Communicated with J Lawyers by writing which includes having received more than 60 emails from that firm regarding family law matters concerning the parties between 3 March 2025 and 22 September 2025; and
    • Have attended court to instruct counsel appearing for the husband at hearings on 1 April 2025 and 23 May 2025.
11. Whilst apparently no work in progress has accrued on behalf of the husband between 3 March and 22 September 2025, notwithstanding Mr Pantellis' observations, costs notices have been filed on his behalf by those same solicitors that indicate he has accrued $49,100 in work in progress[1] and that a further anticipated $2,200 in solicitors' fees was expected for the Case Management hearing listed on 23 May 2025. That same costs notice also estimated fees of at least $74,500 anticipated up to the commencement of the final hearing and including solicitors' attendance at that hearing.
12. It was submitted on behalf of the wife that the husband has engaged in conduct with his former lawyers so as to defeat or thwart the operation of the dollar-for-dollar order. Whilst I can make no findings with respect to those matters in circumstances where there has been no testing of evidence, the material produced by the husband's former lawyers enlivens concerns as to the manner in which they and the husband have discharged their obligations in relation to that order.
13. The fact remains that this costs application arises as a result of the husband's non-compliance with the orders listing the matter for final hearing. It was his failure to file trial documents, his failure to engage lawyers to represent him at trial, and his shortcomings in relation to disclosure and provision of information to appointed valuers that gave rise to the adjournment of the trial. Those matters are significant in the determination of the wife's' application for costs.

(e) Whether any party to the proceedings has been wholly unsuccessful in the proceedings

1. The husband's applications to discharge the dollar-for-dollar order and vary the interim injunctions were wholly unsuccessful; those applications were dismissed.
2. Although the husband sought an adjournment of the proceedings, which was granted, that this occurred was largely to ensure that the wife had opportunity to adduce necessary valuation evidence in the face of the husband's ongoing non-compliance with Court orders. That adjournment of the proceedings has the effect of affording the husband a final opportunity to engage with the proceedings before their finalisation.

(f) Whether either party to the proceedings has made an offer in writing to settle the proceedings

1. No submissions were made as to offers made to settle the proceedings.

1. Having regard to all of the above matters, I am satisfied that those circumstances justify an order for costs. The husband's failure to comply with the trial orders was long-standing and his application to adjourn the proceedings was made late in the day. The consequence of those actions was to disrupt and delay the progress of the proceedings. In addition, the wife was put to significant expense and inconvenience in the preparation of her case for trial. Accordingly, I am satisfied that those matters justify an order that the husband pay the costs of the wife thrown away as a result of the adjournment.

1. The wife seeks that the husband pay her costs on an indemnity basis, and in the alternative, on a party-party basis or calculated pursuant to the scale of costs set out at Schedule 3 of the Rules.
2. It is well-settled that the Court should not depart lightly from the ordinary rule that costs are payable on a party-party basis; an order for indemnity costs requires the establishment of exceptional circumstances (Mansfield and Ors & Mansfield and Anor [2019] FamCAFC 186; (2019) FLC 93-920).
3. In Kohan & Kohan [1992] FamCA 116; (1993) FLC 92-340 the Full Court observed that the Court should not depart lightly from the ordinary rules with respect to costs. In the decision of Prantage & Prantage [2013] FamCAFC 105; (2013) 49 FamLR 197, the Full Court confirmed that indemnity costs should only be awarded if the case has some special or unusual feature.
4. In Colgate-Palmolive Co and Anor v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 536; (1993) 46 FCR 225, Sheppard J identified circumstances that might constitute special or unusual features so as to justify an award of indemnity costs. Helpfully, Holden CJ in Munday v Bowman (1997) FLC 92-784 at 84,660 drew from the decision of Sheppard J the following examples:-

(a) Where it appears that an action has been commenced or continued in circumstances where a party properly advised should have known that he had no chance of success. In such cases the action must be presumed to have been commenced or continued for some ulterior motive or because of some wilful disregard of the known facts.

(b) Making allegations of fraud, knowing them to be false, and the making of irrelevant allegations of fraud.

(c) Evidence of particular misconduct causing loss of time to the court and to other parties.

(d) The making of allegations which ought never to have been made or the undue prolongation of a case by groundless contentions.

(e) An imprudent refusal of an offer to compromise.

1. The category of circumstances which enliven the discretion to award indemnity costs are not closed; the circumstances do not need to come precisely within the examples provided by Sheppard J.
2. The husband has made no submission with respect to the costs application or the quantum of costs as sought by the wife.
3. In support of her application, the wife relies upon the costs agreement with her lawyers dated 7 February 2024.[2] Having regard to that document, I am satisfied that the wife has informed the Court of the costs agreement between she and her lawyers as well as the terms of that agreement in accordance with Rule 12.13(4) of the Rules.
4. It was submitted on behalf of the wife that the issues in this matter are complex, involving property interests valued at no less than $10 million. The majority of the parties' assets are held by entities largely controlled by the husband or members of his family. As a result of that structure, the husband's cooperation in the proceedings has been essential to the wife's ability to identify, understand and value the parties' interests. The wife contends that her ability to attend to those tasks is being frustrated by the on-going non-compliance by the husband with Court orders.
5. The wife submits that she has been put to substantial additional cost as a result of the husband's disengagement with the proceedings. It has been left to the wife to arrange valuations of the parties' entities and property and that has been done with little, if any, cooperation from or by the husband. As a consequence, the wife's costs have been significantly increased. I accept that submission.
6. Having regard to the history of the proceedings which I have detailed earlier in this judgment, I am satisfied that the husband's actions, or inaction, has frustrated and delayed the progress of the proceedings, and has resulted in additional unnecessary costs being incurred by the wife.
7. Notwithstanding previous costs orders made against the husband, there appears to have been little shift in his attitude or approach towards this proceeding. That he sought an adjournment of the trial some four days before the first listed day of hearing speaks to his disregard for the Court process. By that time, the wife had incurred substantial costs in the preparation for trial. I am well satisfied that the husband has disregarded his obligations pursuant to the orders made by Chief Justice Alstergren on 1 April 2025 with respect to trial preparation. The impact of that conduct has had a significant deleterious financial and emotional impact upon the wife and therefore the parties' children. Moreover, it is conduct that has adversely impacted other litigants in this Court, both as a result of the drain on Court resources occasioned due to the necessity for further and additional Court events to manage the matter but also as a result of the consequential delay caused to other litigants as a result of the adjournment of the proceedings. It is conduct that I am satisfied is so exceptional that it justifies an order for indemnity costs.
8. As to quantum, the wife relies upon the schedule of costs identified in her tender bundle.[3]
9. The wife's claim for costs relates to all preparation for the proceedings as and from 6 June 2025 to 13 October 2025. Whilst I have no doubt that the fees claimed have been properly incurred in the preparation of the matter, I am not persuaded that all of those costs have been thrown away as a result of the adjournment of the proceedings. The reality is that much of that work undertaken during that period will be relied upon for the final hearing listed to commence on 16 February 2026. Hence, they are not costs thrown away. For example, the drawing of affidavits for trial, the preparation of a Financial Statement and a case outline document are all documents that will be relied upon at the final hearing. In my view the costs incurred with respect to such matters are not costs thrown away.
10. I am satisfied that the costs thrown away as a result of the husband's application relate to the costs incurred on the first day of hearing, when the trial was adjourned, together with the costs associated with reading, considering and responding to the Application in a Proceeding filed on behalf of the husband with respect to the adjournment. Accordingly, of the matters claimed in the wife's schedule of costs, I propose to allow the following items:-

Reading and considering unsealed Application in a Proceeding sent to Court by Husband on 8 October 2025

Reading email from Husband dated 8 October 2025 regarding adjournment request of the Final Hearing

Email to Jeff Stanely [sic] and Therese Borger regarding Husband's unsealed Application in a Proceeding

Email to Husband in response to his emails dated 8 October 2025 regarding the filing of his Application in a Proceeding

Email to client regarding Husband's emails dated 8 October 2025, his Application in a Proceeding and advising regarding next steps

Email to Jeff Stanley and Therese Borger regarding Mr K's involvement with Husband's Application in a Proceeding and implications for of dollar-for-dollar costs order

Reading and considering sealed Affidavit of Husband (scale costs calculated on time basis instead of word count due to scope of work)

Reading application in a proceeding filed by Husband and considering properties regarding the same (scale costs calculated on time basis instead of word count due to scope of work)

Telephone discussion with client regarding Husband's unfiled Application in a Proceeding emailed to chambers of Justice Johns - engaged 11.39am to 11.51am

Telephone discussion with client and Mr N - engaged 9.00am to 9.26am but charged to client at two units

Telephone discussion with client and Ms O regarding Husband's Application in a Proceeding and preparation for trial - engaged 9.00am to 9.26am

Conference with Jeff Stanley, Therese Borger and Ms O and Ms P by Teams regarding Husband's Application in a Proceeding and preparation for Trial - engaged 10.02 am to 11.24am

Conference with Jeff Stanley, Therese Borger and Ms O and client by teams regarding Husband's Application in a Proceeding and preparation for Trial - engaged 12.30pm to 1.45pm

Conference with Jeff Stanley and Therese Borger and Ms O by Teams (continued) regarding Husband's Application in a Proceeding and preparation for Trial - engaged 1.45pm to 2.12pm

Telephone discussion with client and Ms O regarding Husband's Application in a Proceeding and preparation for trial - engaged 2.12pm to 2.26pm

Telephone discussion with Husband at his request regarding his Application in a Proceeding and the Final Hearing listing on 13 October 2025 - engaged 2.52pm to 3.15pm

Conference with Jeff Stanley, Therese Borger, Mr N and Ms P by Teams regarding Husband's Application in a Proceeding and preparation for Trial - engaged 10.02am to 11.24am

Conference with Jeff Stanley, Therese Borger, and Mr N and client by Teams regarding Husband's Application in a Proceeding and preparation for Trial - engaged 12.30pm to 1.45pm

Conference with Jeff Stanley, Therese Borger and Mr N by Teams regarding Husband's Application in a Proceeding and preparation for Trial (continued) - engaged 1.45pm to 2.12pm

Telephone discussion with client and Mr N regarding Husband's Application in a Proceeding and preparation for Trial - engaged 2.12pm to 2.26pm

Telephone discussion with Therese Borger, Jeff Stanley and Mr N regarding Husband's Application in a Proceeding and preparation for Trial - engaged 3.03pm to 3.30pm

Telephone discussion with client and Mr N regarding Husband's Application in a Proceeding and preparation for Trial - engaged 4.26pm to 5.11pm

Telephone discussion with Jeff Stanely [sic] and Therese Borger with Mr N regarding Husband's Application in a Proceeding and preparation for Trial - 5.12pm to 5.24pm

Preparation day as per Cost Agreement including review of further material filed by Husband, being application in a proceeding, conference with the client, instructors and counsel to rework strategy in respect to approach to Final Hearing in light of new material filed, consideration of admissions made in document

Telephone discussion with Jeff Stanley and Therese Borger regarding family violence evidence, authorities in opposition of adjournment application and Subpoena to J Lawyers in preparation for trial - engaged 11.09am to 11.27am

Attending at the Final Hearing instructing Jeff Stanley and Therese Borger at the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia with Ms P - engaged 9.20am to 4.25pm

Drafting and engrossing minute of Orders made by Justice Johns on 13 October 2025 and forwarding email to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia

Appearance at Day 1 of trial. Trial ultimately adjourned. Interim issues ventilated, and orders made. Trial rescheduled to Feb 2026.

1. Doing the best I can, and excluding those items in the schedule of costs prepared on behalf of the wife which plainly relate to the preparation for the final hearing, which will be available to her upon the matter finally proceeding, I consider it appropriate that I make an order fixing the wife's costs of and incidental to the adjournment of the proceedings in the sum of $25,727.90. That sum is calculated having regard to the amounts billed to the wife pursuant to the costs agreement as identified in that schedule, but excluding items related to trial preparation which are not "thrown away" but will otherwise be utilised at the final hearing. I will order that amount to be paid by the husband within 28 days.

I certify that the preceding sixty-six (66) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Johns .

[1] The Husband's amended costs notice filed 22 May 2025

[2] Wife's tender bundle, document 15, pages 171-183

[3] Wife's tender bundle, document 1, pages 3-41