Event and Time
Event Description
- A litigation funding order was requested by the applicant wife (the applicant) in the context of a family law matter, seeking a variation of an existing dollar-for-dollar funding order.
- The dispute arose as legal costs incurred by the applicant were not being funded by the respondent husband (the respondent), prompting the applicant to seek an order to compel payment for her legal services.
Application and Claims
- The applicant sought an order for the respondent to pay unbilled Work in Progress (WIP) monthly to her solicitors.
- The respondent's position was that the litigation funding order was to level the playing field, and since the applicant's solicitors continued to represent her without payment, there was no need for the order to be varied.
Judicial Decisions
- Despite the respondent's arguments, Justice Hogan maintained that the circumstances justified the variation of the previous order, emphasizing the applicant's ongoing need for legal funding and the disparity in financial situations between the two parties.
- The application for funding was not dismissed solely on the grounds of the time taken to file the Amended Application as argued by the respondent.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Applicant's Claims:
- The need for ongoing legal representation, emphasizing high financial needs and low income. - The applicant's position did not improve since the August 2021 order.
- Respondent's Arguments:
- The existing funding order already balanced the parties' positions as the applicant had representation, regardless of payment. - There was no evidential basis presented to justify the variation of the arrangement to alter the respondent's financial obligations. - The parties had not provided specifics regarding the incurred legal costs which would justify an order for payment of costs.