Aldam and Cesari

[2020] FamCA 54

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ALDAM & CESARI [2020] FamCA 54

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – respondent’s conduct in proceeding dilatory – non-participation in parts of litigation – application for costs of one appearance – costs ordered.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 117, 117(2A)

Colgate–Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225

APPLICANT: Mr Aldam

RESPONDENT: Mr Cesari

FILE NUMBER: MLC 9029 of 2018

DATE DELIVERED: 4 February 2020

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: The Honourable Justice Wilson

HEARING DATE: 4 February 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: J. Schmidt

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Blackwood Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Not applicable

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Not applicable

Orders

1. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs on an indemnity basis in the sum of $9,762 for the hearing on 14 January 2020.

2. The applicant’s costs of today are reserved for trial.

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  Aldam & Cesari 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).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 9029 of 2018

Mr Aldam

Applicant

And

Mr Cesari

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This case has had a lamentable history since it came into my control not by reason of any conduct by the applicant but rather by reason of conduct of the respondent.  The conduct of Mr Cesari and his then solicitors have occasioned a degree of disruption in the orderly presentation of this case culminating in an abortive appearance before me on 14 January 2020.

2. As a result of that conduct leading to the events of 14 January and as a result of the orders made on 14 January, Mr Schmidt on behalf of the applicant sought his client’s costs of 14 January on an indemnity basis.  Mr Schmidt also sought costs wasted of today.  He pressed for payment of costs orders made by the registrar on a previous occasion.  I have informed Mr Schmidt and Mr Cesari that there is such a factual quagmire about the events at and after the conciliation conference that I propose to reserve those costs for a full factual investigation at trial.

3. Mr Cesari has applied to review the decision of the registrar made in December of last year and with it, the costs order.  There again is a factual examination that must be undertaken for me to better understand precisely what happened in and around that day.  I reserve the question of costs on that occasion. 

4. The situation on 14 January is in…