Without such material being available the Plaintiff would be in a marked procedural disadvantage, and her solicitors and counsel not likely to be able to properly resolve the matter. There is no realistic prospect of the Plaintiff investigating and preparing for hearing on a proper basis without such investigation. The ambit of section 76 Supreme Court Act is very wide and b. Adopting Breen v Breen they did not need to decide whether the power was under the costs or maintenance power. The wording used by Bryson J in his judgment is extremely wide and there would appear to be no reason why the principles which he enunciated cannot be used to successfully mount similar applications for orders for interim costs in cases where there is a great disparity between the financial circumstances of the parties. Patient's claims in medical negligence cases against hospitals.
Individuals claims against large corporations in product liability matters.
Orders for payment by a husband towards the costs of a wife in divorce cases were a feature of the practice of matrimonial law in England and in Australia for about 100 years. Some parties, of course, simply do not have such funds, and so the practice reappeared of orders regarding interim costs being made to provide a destitute party to a marriage with the necessary money to obtain independent and expert evidence of valuation of assets and in come cases to pay the legal expenses of a hearing when the other party has substantial funds. There was great complexity of the husband's affairs and there was need for an expert investigation into them. The wife had been, to some extent, involved in those affairs. The husband had undoubted wealth and the wife depended upon him for her support.