Baboor and Reema and Ors - [2020] FamCA 227

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BABOOR & REEMA AND ORS

[2020] FamCA 227

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the mother seeks an order that the father pay her costs in relation to her interim parenting application – Where the father seeks that the mother’s costs application be dismissed – Where the father’s conduct added to the time and cost of proceedings – Where the mother was wholly successful in her interim application – Where circumstances do justify an order for costs – Costs order made in favour of the mother.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 19.08

Baboor & Reema [2019] FamCA 698
D & D (Costs) (No. 2) (2010) FLC 93-435
PBF as Child Representative for AF (Legal Aid Commissioner of Tasmania) & TRF & LKL (2005) 33 Fam LR 123
Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311

APPLICANT:

Ms Baboor

1st RESPONDENT:

Mr Reema

2nd RESPONDENT:

Mr Reema Snr

3rd RESPONDENT:

Ms Reema Snr

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid NSW

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

1995

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

9 April 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Hannam J

HEARING DATE:

In Chambers

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Walter & Elliott Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT:

Mr Givney

SOLICITOR FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT:

Broun Abrahams Burreket

COUNSEL FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT:

SOLICITOR FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT:

Watts Mccray

COUNSEL FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT:

SOLICITOR FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT:

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid NSW

Orders

That the father pay the costs of and incidental to the mother’s Application in a Case filed 12 April 2019 in the sum of $9,000.

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 Baboor & Reema 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 PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 1995 of 2018

Ms Baboor

Applicant

And

Mr Reema

Respondent

And

Mr Reema Snr and Ms Reema Snr

Second Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This judgment concerns an application for costs made by the mother who is the respondent in proceedings initiated by the father. The parties are engaged in a property settlement and parenting dispute relating to the only child of their seven year marriage.
The mother seeks an order that the father pay her costs in relation to an Application in a Case filed on 12 April 2019 in which she sought that the child be permitted to travel overseas with the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Baboor and Reema and Ors and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] FamCA 227
Decision Date: 9 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Baboor and Reema and Ors concerned an application by the mother for costs in family law proceedings before Hannam J. The specific nature of the underlying dispute between the parties, which led to the mother's application for costs, is not detailed in the provided text.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of the quantum of costs to be awarded to the mother in relation to her Application in a Case filed on 12 April 2019.

Hannam J ordered that the father pay the costs of and incidental to the mother’s Application in a Case filed 12 April 2019 in the sum of $9,000. This order is subject to the formal entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the father pay the costs of and incidental to the mother’s Application in a Case filed 12 April 2019 in the sum of $9,000.

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.