Acland & Grohl

Case [2019] FamCAFC 69

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ACLAND & GROHL [2019] FamCAFC 69
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Appeal discontinued – Where the respondent seeks an order for the payment of her costs on an indemnity basis – Where the appellant asserts that the costs should be assessed on a party and party basis – Where the appeal was doomed to fail – Where the appeal was based on a fundamentally flawed premise – Where the appellant imprudently refused an offer of settlement – Order made for the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis – Fixed costs.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 90SM, 117, 117(2A), 117(2A)(f), 117(2A)(g)
Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act 2008 (Cth) s 2 (Schedule 1)
Colgate-Palmolive Company v CussonsPty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225; [1993] FCA 536
D & D (Costs) (No.2) (2010) FLC 93-435; [2010] FamCAFC 64
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397; [1988] FCA 364
Government Insurance Office of New South Wales v Bailey (1992) 27 NSWLR 304
Jonah & White (2012) FLC 93-552; [2012] FamCAFC 200
Kohan & Kohan (1993) FLC 92-340
Limousin v Limousin (Costs) (2007) 38 Fam LR 478; [2007] FamCA 1178
Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Ex parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622; [1997] HCA 6
Stead v State Government Insurance Commission (1986) 161 CLR 141; [1986] HCA 54
APPELLANT: Mr Acland
RESPONDENT: Ms Grohl
FILE NUMBER: WOC 692 of 2016
APPEAL NUMBER: EA 130 of 2018
DATE DELIVERED: 12 April 2019
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
PLACE HEARD: Sydney
JUDGMENT OF: Ryan, Aldridge & Watts JJ
HEARING DATE: 12 April 2019
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 14 September 2018
LOWER COURT MNC: [2018] FamCA 732

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Ms Messner
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: Apex Legal
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Coleman SC
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Sydney Family Law Specialists Pty Ltd

Orders

  1. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal fixed in the sum of $32,000 within twenty-eight (28) days.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym  Acland & Grohl has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 130 of 2018
File Number:  WOC 692 of 2016

Mr Acland

Appellant

And

Ms Grohl

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ALDRIDGE J

  1. This…

Continue reading Acland & Grohl

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Acland & Grohl [2019] FamCAFC 69
Case
[2019] FamCAFC 69
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Acland & Grohl, the respondent brought an appeal against the appellant in the Family Court, contesting the costs incurred during the proceedings. The crux of the dispute was the basis on which these costs should be assessed. The respondent sought an order for the payment of her costs on an indemnity basis, while the appellant argued that the costs should be assessed on a party and party basis. The case reached the court with both parties presenting their arguments on the appropriate assessment of costs in light of the appeal's outcome.

The court was required to determine the proper basis for assessing the costs of the appeal. It considered whether the respondent's request for indemnity costs was justified given the circumstances of the case. The court examined the nature of the appeal, noting that it was based on a fundamentally flawed premise and was ultimately doomed to fail. Additionally, the court took into account the appellant's imprudent refusal of an offer of settlement, which further influenced the decision on costs. Given these factors, the court found that the respondent was entitled to indemnity costs.

In light of the court's reasoning, it ordered that the appellant should pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal, fixed at $32,000, within twenty-eight days. The form of the order was subject to the entry of the order in the court's records. This decision underscored the importance of the basis on which costs are assessed in appeals and the potential consequences of imprudent actions during litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal fixed in the sum of $32,000 within twenty-eight (28) days.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.