Fathers actual costs of $252,000 result in a costs order of just $10,000: The Costly Lesson in Proportional Justice
How a father’s six-figure legal bill turned into a cautionary tale about fairness, restraint, and the limits of costs recovery in family law.
In Langley & Mirza (No 2) [2025], Justice Austin delivered a sharp reality check for litigants pursuing large-scale cost recoveries in family law. Despite the father spending $252,235.91 in actual legal costs, he walked away with only $10,000 in costs on appeal — a stark illustration that family law costs are governed by proportionality, fairness, and reasonableness, not the magnitude of one’s legal bills.
The case demonstrates that even where a party “wins,” discretion and equity control the outcome — not accounting spreadsheets or punitive motives.
Facts and Issues
After a bitterly contested property trial, the father sought to recoup his substantial legal expenditure, applying for a costs order of $252,235.91 (actual) or alternatively $206,262.38 (party/party).
The mother opposed, arguing both sides had contributed to the protracted dispute. The trial judge agreed, fixing costs at $77,080.68, representing half of each party’s combined outlays — a rough, equitable division.
The mother appealed on five grounds:
- The primary judge allegedly used indemnity rates despite rejecting indemnity costs.
- She was denied procedural fairness, not being consulted on the numerical calculation.
- Failure to consider all relevant Family Law Act s 117(2A) factors.
- Overlooked one of her earlier Costs Notices (2021).
- Inadequate reasons for fixing, rather than assessing, costs.
The key issue became whether the trial judge’s approach miscarried in law or principle — and whether the outcome was manifestly unfair.
Application of Law to the Facts
Justice Austin reaffirmed the well-established restraint on appellate interference: a costs discretion is “not to be lightly disturbed” unless there is error of principle or procedural unfairness.
- The judge found that no indemnity order was made — the trial judge had merely used each party’s actual legal spend as a “common baseline” for fairness, avoiding distortion that would occur if only one side’s lower party/party costs were used.
- Procedural fairness was not denied; both parties made extensive written submissions, and the Court was not obliged to reopen for discussion of raw figures.
- The s 117(2A) factors were expressly cited; the judge was not required to list each exhaustively.
- The alleged overlooked Costs Notice was never in evidence, and therefore irrelevant.
- Fixing costs, rather than ordering a protracted assessment, was consistent with the overriding purpose of efficiency under r 1.04 of the FCFCOA (Family Law) Rules 2021.
Analysis of the Judgment and Reasoning
Justice Austin dismissed the mother’s appeal entirely — but notably, while the father succeeded, his reward was symbolic rather than substantial.
His Honour awarded the father just $10,000 in appeal costs, expressly noting the appeal was “short and straightforward” and did not justify significant reimbursement.
The decision reinforced three principles:
- Winning doesn’t guarantee full reimbursement.
- Even after prevailing on all issues, the father’s recovery — less than 4% of his total legal spend — underscored that family law is about fairness, not restitution.
- Fairness outranks financial precision.
- The trial judge’s “half-the-combined-costs” approach was upheld as equitable and proportionate.
- Efficiency trumps escalation.
- Justice Austin commended the pragmatic choice to fix costs to avoid yet another dispute, preserving judicial resources and discouraging excessive litigation.
Take-Home Lessons
💡 1. Spending more doesn’t mean you’ll recover more.
Family law’s discretionary nature means cost orders are guided by fairness, not the scale of expenditure.
💡 2. Costs appeals are a dead end unless there’s clear error.
Courts protect discretionary judgments from re-litigation.
💡 3. Efficiency and proportionality rule the day.
A $252,000 legal saga yielded a $10,000 outcome — a reminder that family law punishes overreach and rewards reasonableness.
💡 4. Fixing costs protects both parties from endless disputes.
The court’s focus is finality, not financial revenge.
Cited Authorities
- Langley & Mirza (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 226
- Minister for Immigration v SZGUR (2011) 241 CLR 594
- SZBEL v MIMIA (2006) 228 CLR 152
- Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117(2A)
- FCFCOA (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 1.04
