Jurgen (a pseudonym) v George

1. Following some administrative case management and one court appearance, Mr Jurgen filed notices of abandonment of appeal to this court for both appeal matters on 25 March 2026. Ms George applied for her costs.

1. The subject of this ruling is Mr Jurgen's opposition to the respondent's application for costs.

1. The parties' positions were put by way of written submissions to the court.

1. The appellant submits that the conduct of filing the notices of abandonment were reasonable and taken in good faith to bring finality to ongoing litigation.[3] Mr Jurgen submits that the respondent's application for costs undermines the objective of finalising litigation and only continues the dispute.[4]
2. Mr Jurgen further submits that the respondent's involvement in the appeal was minimal and there has been no substantive hearings of the appeal between the administrative case management, correspondence and the filing of the notices of abandonment. He submits that the amount sought by the respondent is disproportionate and is not wholly reflective of the costs of the proceeding.[5]
3. The respondent submits that she has incurred legal costs as a direct consequence of Mr Jurgen instituting and subsequently abandoning the appeals.[6]
4. Pursuant to s154 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, each party to a proceeding for a family violence intervention order are to bear their own costs of the proceeding. However, the court can make an order about costs if exceptional circumstances exist.[7]
5. Having considered both parties' submissions, I will not award costs for the following reasons.

1. First, there is a clear legislative presumption in s154 of the Act, that costs must not be awarded unless exceptional circumstances exist. This is to dissuade disputes as to costs complicating a proceeding which is often difficult for aggrieved parties to negotiate, particularly in family disputes. It stops costs being used as a weapon in litigation.

1. Second, I consider that the appellant's filing of the notice was at an early stage, prior to any substantive hearing of the proceedings. This demonstrates an effort by the appellant to bring the proceedings to an end at an early stage.

1. Third, I do not consider that there are exceptional circumstances to warrant costs being awarded against the applicant. I rely on s154(4) which plainly states:

"... the mere fact that an application is made and then withdrawn is not exceptional and does not amount in itself to a vexatious or frivolous application or an application made in bad faith."

1. In consideration of the above, I deny the respondent's application for costs against the appellant.

[3] Appellants response to respondent's submissions on costs undated, filed on 27 March 2025 at paragraph [4]

[6] Respondent's submissions on costs undated, filed on 27 March 2026 at paragraph [5]

[7] Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s154(3)(a)