Anison and Anison (No. 3) - [2018] FamCA 748

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ANISON & ANISON (NO. 3)

[2018] FamCA 748

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – where the husband seeks an order that the wife pay his costs of and incidental to the proceedings on a standard basis – where the husband seeks an order that the wife pay his costs of and incidental to certain aspects of the proceedings, which occurred before the disjoiner of an entity previously joined to the proceedings by the wife, on a standard basis – where the wife seeks an order that the husband pay her costs of and incidental to the proceedings on an indemnity basis, or alternatively, pay her costs as assessed on the standard basis – where the wife seeks an order that the husband pay her costs of and incidental to an interim application by which she sought the provision of funds for the litigation and a spousal maintenance order and a mandatory injunction directing that the husband apply to Centrelink for certain documents.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 118 ALR 248
D & D (Costs) (No 2) (2010) FLC 93-435
In the Marriage of Kohan (1993) FLC 92-340

Limousin v Limousin (Costs) (2008) 38 Fam LR 478

Yunghanns v Yunghanns (2000) FLC 93-029

APPLICANT:

Ms Anison

RESPONDENT:

Mr Anison

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

1827

2013

DATE DELIVERED:

21 September 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Hogan J

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Wiltshire Family Law

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Evans & Co Family Lawyers

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT

The Application in a Case filed 1 December 2015 is dismissed.
The Amended Application in a Case filed 26 March 2018 is dismissed.
The Respondent pay those costs of and incidental to the proceedings incurred by the Applicant after 6 November 2015 on a party/party basis in such amount as is agreed between the parties or, failing agreement, as assessed in accordance with Schedule 3 to the Family Law Rules 2004.
The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to the Application in a Case filed 4 December 2013 (other than in respect of the claim for the obtaining of records from the Department of Human Resources), including the costs of applying for an order for the costs of and incidental to the same, on a party/party basis in such amount as may be agreed between the parties or, failing agreement, as assessed in accordance with Schedule 3 to the Family Law Rules 2004.
Save as is provided for above, there be no order as to costs.

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 Anison & Anison (No. 3) 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…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Anison and Anison (No. 3)

Details

AGLC: Anison and Anison (No. 3) [2018] FamCA 748
Case: [2018] FamCA 748
Decision Date: 21 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Anison and Anison (No. 3)*, Hogan J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications filed on 1 December 2015 and 26 March 2018. The specific nature of the dispute between the parties is not detailed in the provided text, but the proceedings concerned applications brought by one party against the other.

The central legal issues before the court revolved around the dismissal of these applications and the consequential orders for costs. The court was required to determine whether the applications should be dismissed and, if so, how the costs of the proceedings should be allocated between the parties.

Hogan J ordered the dismissal of both the application filed on 1 December 2015 and the amended application filed on 26 March 2018. The court further made specific orders regarding costs. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant’s costs incurred after 6 November 2015 on a party/party basis, with the amount to be agreed or assessed. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant’s costs related to an application filed on 4 December 2013, excluding costs associated with obtaining records from the Department of Human Resources, also on a party/party basis. Save for these specific cost orders, there was no further order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS ORDERED THAT

The Application in a Case filed 1 December 2015 is dismissed.

The Amended Application in a Case filed 26 March 2018 is dismissed.

The Respondent pay those costs of and incidental to the proceedings incurred by the Applicant after 6 November 2015 on a party/party basis in such amount as is agreed between the parties or, failing agreement, as assessed in accordance with Schedule 3 to the Family Law Rules 2004.

The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to the Application in a Case filed 4 December 2013 (other than in respect of the claim for the obtaining of records from the Department of Human Resources), including the costs of applying for an order for the costs of and incidental to the same, on a party/party basis in such amount as may be agreed between the parties or, failing agreement, as assessed in accordance with Schedule 3 to the Family Law Rules 2004.

Save as is provided for above, there be no order as to costs.

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.