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

Page Provan Calls for Repeal of Surrogacy Parentage Regulation Changes

On 9 October 2026, our director Stephen Page wrote to the Attorney-General, the Hon Michelle Rowland MP, calling for the repeal of Part 3 of the Family Law Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2026. If left in place, these regulations will remove the statutory presumptions that currently help establish the legal parentage of children… Read More »Page Provan Calls for Repeal of Surrogacy Parentage Regulation Changes

Australian Surrogacy Law Change: 3,000 Children’s Parentage at Risk

A change to Australia’s family law regulations threatens to remove an important layer of legal certainty for nearly 3,000 children born overseas through surrogacy. For their families, the issue is anything but technical. It concerns whether Australian law presumes that the people raising these children are their parents. The repeal of regulation 10.3 of the… Read More »Australian Surrogacy Law Change: 3,000 Children’s Parentage at Risk

Infertility Week: 4 things that can stop surrogacy

Infertility can eat away at a person’s sense of hope. It can make ordinary moments painful: a pregnancy announcement, a family gathering, or the seemingly endless appearance of babies everywhere. For someone longing to become a parent, the question can become deeply personal: why does parenthood seem possible for everyone else? Infertility awareness is not… Read More »Infertility Week: 4 things that can stop surrogacy

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