Following a high conflict family dispute involving 76 Orders and two Trials, the Applicant, Mr. Parker applied for the apportionment of Costs. After the Action had concluded, the Respondent, Ms. Yassa made an assignment into bankruptcy. The bankruptcy was later discharged. The Order discharging the bankruptcy provided that all Costs related to “support issues” survived the bankruptcy, and that apportionment of those Costs was still to be determined.

The Applicant argued that 75% of the Cost award at the second Trial related to support matters and should survive the bankruptcy. The Respondent argued that the Applicant was attempting to re-litigate the issue of Costs, and that the Court had no jurisdiction to apportion the “mixed cost award” provided for at Trial.

Topolniski J. held that the Court had “ample clear and convincing authority” to apportion Costs after the entry of a Judgment, pursuant to Rule 9.14(b). Rule 9.14(b) permits the Court to make further or other Orders that are required, so long as they do not vary the original Judgment or Order, and are needed to provide a remedy that a Party is entitled to in connection with the Order or Judgment. As such, the Court had jurisdiction to apportion the Costs as between the Parties in the Action. Her Ladyship held further that, as argued by the Applicant, 75% of the Costs awarded at Trial related to support issues. Costs of the Application, were awarded to the Applicant in accordance with Column 1 of Schedule C.