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

Why adoption has become “institutionally invisible” in Queensland

Queensland’s child protection system is facing an urgent and deeply troubling question: why are children who cannot safely return home being left in state care for years, often moving from placement to placement, without genuine consideration of adoption? The recent Child Safety Inquiry has put that question squarely on the table. Its findings are confronting.… Read More »Why adoption has become “institutionally invisible” in Queensland

Queensland sperm donor family limits explained

  Queensland’s new sperm donor family limits were meant to provide sensible safeguards for children conceived through donor treatment. Instead, Queensland Health has adopted an interpretation that appears to split a female same sex couple into two separate families. That position is difficult to reconcile with the law, common sense, and the lived reality of… Read More »Queensland sperm donor family limits explained

South Australia surrogacy agreements: are they unlawful?

South Australia takes a distinctly narrow approach to surrogacy agreements. The issue is not simply whether a proposed arrangement is altruistic, or whether everyone involved has acted with the best of intentions. Under the Surrogacy Act 2019 (SA), the first question is whether the arrangement falls into the category of a lawful surrogacy agreement. That… Read More »South Australia surrogacy agreements: are they unlawful?

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