FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| ATKINS & HUNT AND ORS (COSTS) | [2017] FamCAFC 131 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – where two appeals were filed in respect of spousal maintenance and final property settlement orders – where the question of costs for the spousal maintenance appeal was reserved until the delivery of orders and reasons in the property settlement appeal – where those orders required each of the parties to file submissions in relation to costs – where applications for costs were made in respect of both appeals – where the wife made an application seeking that the husband pay the costs of both appeals – where the wife sought that no order for costs be made against her by the second to sixth respondents – where the wife sought in the alternative that the husband indemnify her against any costs ordered against her – where the husband sought no order for costs – where the second to sixth respondents made an application that the wife pay their costs – where the success of the spousal maintenance appeal and the parties’ relative financial circumstances justified an order for costs in respect of that appeal – where the wife was wholly unsuccessful in her appeal against the second to sixth respondents – where the wife’s claims on appeal in relation to the second to sixth respondents were not raised at the trial – where those circumstances justified an order for costs against the wife in the property settlement appeal – where there was no basis to make an order for the husband to indemnify the wife – where the husband resisted the property settlement appeal and should pay the wife’s costs thereof – application for costs in the spousal maintenance appeal allowed against the husband – application by the second to sixth respondents for costs in the property settlement appeal allowed against the wife – application by the wife for costs in the property settlement appeal allowed against the husband. |
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 44(3), 74, 75(2), 83, 117, 117(1), 117(2A), 117(2A)(a), 117(2A)(c), 117(2A0(e), 117(2A)(f)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 19.50
Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act1981 ss 6, 8
| Parke & The Estate of the Late A Parke (2016) FLC 93-748 |
| APPELLANT: | Ms Atkins |
| FIRST RESPONDENT: | Mr Hunt |
| SECOND RESPONDENT: | N Pty Limited |
| THIRD RESPONDENT: | T Pty Limited |
| FOURTH RESPONDENT: | H Pty Limited |
| FIFTH RESPONDENT: | Mr D |
| SIXTH RESPONDENT: | Mr J |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 425 | of | 2012 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | EA | 171 | of | 2014 |
| EA | 158 | of | 2015 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 14 July 2017 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Brisbane |
| PLACE HEARD: | By way of written submissions |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Bryant CJ, May and Murphy JJ |
| HEARING DATE OF APPEAL: | 23 and 24 August 2016 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATES: | 4 December 2014 21 August 2015 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2014] FamCA 1076 [2015] FamCA 707 |
REPRESENTATION
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: | Milevski Family Lawyers |
| COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: | Mr Lethbridge SC |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: | Sexton… |
Continue reading Atkins & Hunt
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Atkins & Hunt [2017] FamCAFC 131
- Case
- [2017] FamCAFC 131
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included the quantum of spousal maintenance to be awarded to the wife, the appropriate distribution of property between the parties, and the reasonableness of the engagement of Senior Counsel in relation to the appeals. The court had to consider the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles in determining these matters.
The court found that the wife was entitled to a larger maintenance amount than originally awarded and set aside the original decision. In relation to the property settlement, the court upheld the primary judge's decision. The court also found that it was reasonable for the parties to engage Senior Counsel, considering the complexity of the case. The wife was ordered to pay the costs of the second to sixth respondents in relation to the property appeal.
The court ordered that the husband pay the wife's costs of the spousal maintenance appeal, the wife's costs of the property appeal, and the respondents' costs of the property appeal, as per the terms agreed upon or assessed. The court also certified that it was reasonable for the parties to engage Senior Counsel in relation to the appeals.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The husband pay to Milevski Family Lawyers Trust Account the wife’s costs of and incidental to the spousal maintenance appeal EA158 of 2015 as agreed or failing agreement as assessed.
2.
The husband pay to Milevski Family Lawyers Trust Account the wife’s costs of and incidental to the property appeal EA171 of 2014 as agreed or failing agreement as assessed.
3.
The wife pay the second to sixth respondents’ costs of and incidental to the property appeal EA171 of 2014.
4.
Pursuant to rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) the Court certifies that it was reasonable for the parties to engage Senior Counsel in relation to the appeals.
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.