Baumann and Rushbrooke and Ors (No 2)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BAUMANN & RUSHBROOKE AND ORS (NO 2) [2017] FamCA 293

FAMILY LAW – COSTS - Where the wife joins the second, third and fourth respondents to the proceedings – Where the substantive proceedings between the husband and the wife were resolved by consent on the third day of hearing –Where the matter did not proceed to a final determination by the Court – Where the second, third and fourth respondents seek costs against the wife – Consideration of section 117(2A) – Where the application for costs is dismissed

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 79, 106B, 117, 117(2A), 117(2A)(a), 117(2A)(c), 117(2A)(e), 117(2A)(f), 117(2A)(g)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), r 6.02, r 6.02(1)

Australian Securities Commission v Aust Home Investments Limited & Ors (1993) 116 ALR 523
Baumann and Ors & Rushbrooke and Anor [2017] FamCA 175
Brook & MacKenzie Pty Ltd v LEL-Gra Engineering Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1495
Collins& Collins (1985) FLC 91-603
Minerology v National Native Title Tribunal [1998] FCA 1700 Penfold  v  Penfold  [1980] HCA 4; (1980) 144 CLR 311
Re Minister of Immigration & Ethnic Affairs; Ex Parte Lai Quin [1997] HCA 6
Riznic & Riznic (1984) 10 Fam LR 385

APPLICANT: Mr D Baumann

RESPONDENT: Ms Rushbrooke

2^nd RESPONDENT: Mr Hilton

3^rd RESPONDENT: Ms S Baumann

4^th RESPONDENT:        Mr KK Baumann

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2032 of 2015

DATE DELIVERED: 10 May 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: McClelland

HEARING DATE: 29 March 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Campton SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:	Uther Webster and Evans
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:	Michael Conley Lawyers
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:	Simon White SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE 2^ND, 3^RD AND 4^TH RESPONDENTS: McDonell Milne Toltz Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE 2^ND, 3^RD AND 4^TH                   
RESPONDENTS:  Peter Fowler

Orders

1. That the second, third and fourth respondents’ application for costs as against the wife is dismissed.

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 Baumann and Rushbrooke & Ors 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 SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2032 of 2015

Mr D Baumann

Applicant

And

Ms Rushbrooke
Respondent

And

Mr Hilton
Second Respondent

And

Ms S Baumann

Third Respondent

And

Mr KK Baumann

Fourth Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. Mr D Baumann (“the husband”) and Ms Rushbrooke (“the wife”) have been involved in protracted litigation concerning, initially, respective applications for parenting orders and subsequently, respective applications for…