This was a family costs decision arising from an application to review child support despite a separation agreement requiring mediation first and then arbitration for reviewable disputes.
Both parties ignored the mandatory dispute resolution process without a written amendment to the agreement, and neither side achieved success on the merits in court.
The court held that Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules did not apply and that, while Rule 24 presumptively favours a successful party, there was no successful party here.
Taking into account the parties' unreasonable decision to litigate and the absence of costs endorsements at the case conferences, the court awarded the respondent wife limited all-inclusive costs.
