Costs — without notice application — prevention of removal from New Zealand — forum conveniens — exceptional circumstances — Care of Children Act 2004, s 142 — Legal Services Act 2011, s 45 — Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction — Laverty v Para Franchising Ltd [2006] 1 NZLR 650 (CA). This was an application in relation to costs. The substantive proceedings relating to the care and contact of the parties' children had been resolved by consent, and an order declaring New Zealand forum non conveniens had been made, as well as an order discharging the order preventing removal of the children from New Zealand. The United Arab Emirates (UAE), which is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, had been deemed by the New Zealand Family Court to be the forum conveniens in the parties' case. Several days after consent had been reached, the father, with a change of counsel, filed a without notice application to prevent the removal of the children from New Zealand, citing a threatening email he claimed the mother had sent him, but did not disclose in the application that New Zealand had been declared forum non conveniens. The Judge considering the application granted the order and the following day the mother filed a without notice application to discharge the order preventing the removal of the children, which was also granted. The mother then applied for costs against the father, stating that it was entirely unnecessary for the father to have filed the without notice application. She denied sending the email but stated that even if she had sent the email, it would be for a UAE court to hear. The father claimed to be legally aided, which meant the threshold for awarding costs against him was higher, but no evidence of this was produced. The Judge agreed that the father should not have filed the without notice application given the determination of forum non conveniens, and certainly should have disclosed this in the application. The Judge determined that the higher threshold of exceptional circumstances was not met, but on an ordinary basis costs should be awarded against the respondent father given his conduct. The Judge made an award accordingly. Judgment Date: 14 July 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *