Family Court case; security for costs before conciliation conference not proper

Family Court case; security for costs before conciliation conference not proper

In the recent Full Court of the Family Court case of Davey and Davey, the husband appealed against a security for costs order which required him to:

  • provide security for costs to the solicitors’ trust accounts of the wife and of their son
  • before the conciliation conference was held
  • and if he did not do so, then his claim was stayed
  • and after the conciliation conference and before the trial, or his claim was stayed.

A security for costs order can be made where it is considered that the chances of success of the claim are low and money ought to be put forward now so that if that party loses, and a costs order is made against that party, then the other party has a means to be able to receive costs.

Applications for security for costs are rarely brought, because the courts are concerned that they might have the effect of denying people rights to argue their case in court.

A conciliation conference is a compulsory conference held in property matters which is aimed to try and settle matters and avoid trial.

The husband had no property. Justice May, sitting as the Full Court, held that the husband’s claim had “limited prospects” and that it was therefore appropriate for a security for costs order to be made for after the conciliation conference.

Her Honour held:

It was not a proper exercise of his Honour’s discretion to make the order
requiring security for the conciliation conference particularly in view of
his findings as to the husband’s financial position.
In addition, it was not proper to order that without paying the costs of the hearing before his Honour the conciliation conference could not proceed.

Disclosure: I appeared for the second respondent.

Request an Appointment
Fill in the form below to find out if you have a claim.
Request an Appointment - Stephen Page
Things to Read, Watch & Listen

De facto relationship: what counts under family law?

Sharing a home does not automatically make two people a de facto couple. Equally, living apart does not necessarily mean that a de facto relationship cannot exist. Under Australian family law, the question involves more than an address. The central issue is whether the couple’s relationship amounts to living together on a genuine domestic basis.… Read More »De facto relationship: what counts under family law?

Paid egg donation in Australia: is it legal?

Can someone be paid to donate eggs in Australia? The short answer is no. Human eggs cannot lawfully be treated as something to buy or sell. Australia permits altruistic egg donation, not commercial egg donation. But that is not the end of the story. A donor may be reimbursed for reasonable expenses associated with the… Read More »Paid egg donation in Australia: is it legal?

Egg Freezing in Prison: The High Court’s Decision in Smith

Does a prison sentence also mean losing the opportunity to become a parent after release? That question sits at the heart of Smith v Chief Executive, Queensland Corrective Services, a powerful High Court decision about egg freezing, fertility preservation and the limits of punishment. The High Court unanimously found that egg freezing did not fall… Read More »Egg Freezing in Prison: The High Court’s Decision in Smith

Family Law Section Law Council of Australia Award
Member of Queensland law society
Family law Practitioners Association
International Academy of Family Lawyers - IAFL
Mediator Standards Board