Bacu and Bacu (Costs No. 2)

[2010] FamCA 974

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BACU & BACU (COSTS NO. 2) [2010] FamCA 974

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – application for costs filed 13 September 2010

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Bacu

RESPONDENT: Mr Bacu

FILE NUMBER: PAF 1866 of 2004

DATE DELIVERED: 26 October 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Le Poer Trench J

HEARING DATE: 26 October 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr McFarlane

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr McGrath

Orders

1. The costs application of the wife filed 13 September 2010 arising out of the attendance at Court on 24 May 2010 is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Bacu & Bacu (Costs No. 2) is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: PAF 1866 of 2004

MS BACU

Applicant

And

MR BACU

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for costs filed on 13 September 2010 by the wife.  This application seeks the costs of the Court attendance on 24 May 2010. It is submitted the attendance arose as a result of a failure to comply with orders on 10 March 2010 by the husband.  I was required to read an affidavit of the wife's solicitor sworn 21 May 2010 and an affidavit of David Lardner, the solicitor for the husband, sworn 20 May 2010.  It was submitted that there was no evidence put before the Court to explain why the husband had not complied with the orders of the Court.

2. The basis for this costs application is that the failure to comply with the orders on 10 May 2010 rendered the Court attendance by the wife's solicitor and Counsel on 24 May 2010 a loss.  I do not agree with that submission.  On 24 May 2010 substantial orders were made.  The case, as I have said earlier, took a different direction.  On that day, 24 May 2010, the parties were ordered to file their evidence.  Specific orders were made as to what that evidence was to address.  Aspects of leave and evidence to be given by other witnesses were addressed in those orders.  So I do not accept that the attendance at Court on 24 May 2010 caused, effectively, a loss of time, that it was an attendance which gave no satisfaction to the wife.

3. In those circumstances it is not necessary to address the submissions of the husband and I would refuse the costs application of the wife and I would order that the costs application of the wife filed 13 September 2010 arising out of the attendance at court on 24 May 2010 is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Le Poer Trench J delivered on 26 October 2010

Associate: 

Date:  3 November 2010