Obstructive challenges to relationship property lawsuits have a cost; orders to pay a greater contribution towards court-ordered legal fees, with judicial temperament labelling this extra cost as an ‘uplift,’ rather than a penalty.
The High Court ordered Nathan Palmer pay a fifty per cent uplift on usual costs orders after challenging Nicole Taber’s application for interim liquidation of their business, Hira Homestead Homes Ltd.
An interim liquidator was appointed in February 2026, taking control of company assets, after Mr Nathan made it clear he had little interest in sorting out what should happen to their animal boarding business.
Ms Taber and Mr Nathan were in a personal relationship when setting up Homestead Homes as a joint venture company in August 2025. Their personal relationship ended four months later.
Mr Nathan alleges she walked out on the business, abandoning the assets.
She alleges Mr Nathan has unilaterally taken control; removing her without authority as director and shareholder from the Companies Office record and having her signing authority over the company bank account removed.
There are allegations Mr Nathan has siphoned money from the company bank account into another account he controls.
Challenged about changes made to Companies Office records, Mr Nathan claims Ms Taber did sign the necessary documents, but these have been lost; supposedly taken by Ms Taber, he claims.
In February 2026, Justice Osborne ruled these events made it ‘inevitable’ that an interim liquidator be appointed to take temporary control of the disputed assets.
There was no merit in Mr Nathan’s attempted opposition, he said.
He subsequently ordered Mr Nathan pay Ms Taber a fifty per cent uplift on the standard rate for legal costs awarded successful litigants.
Taber v. Hira Homestead Ltd – High Court (19.03.26)
26.109