2 Comments Family & de facto law, financial agreements, consent orders
So my understanding goes that you cant go for costs when the orders are by consent. So if he agreed at the 11th hour then you have consent orders not court orders.
The only difference being one was decided by a judge vs one being agreed by the parties.
Now you can only go for costs if the decisions the judge made was worse than one that was offered by consent earlier....
Let me make it simple (to help me)
So I offered my ex a settlement where she got 60/40 she refused and took it to trial. In court judge ORDERED 50/50. I might have a case for costs because the thing could have been settled earlier.
So reading between the lines, because he settled at the last minute a judge didn't make a decision, hence you don't have a claim for costs?????
I'm going to suggest that if there was no judgement with orders it was consented to. So yes, you can ask for something silly and then consent. You got presumably what you wanted or better than that. Presumably the judge also did not give any directions in relation to costs or applications for costs.
Either you didn't need a lawyer that much because his case was never going to make it, in which case if the lawyer said that you could have dropped them, or the lawyer in fact made your case.