BEADLE & GOODRIDGE - [2020] FamCAFC 82

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BEADLE & GOODRIDGE

[2020] FamCAFC 82

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – SECURITY FOR COSTS – Where it is common ground that the respondents are impecunious – Where that circumstance per se cannot be a basis for ordering an appellant to provide security for costs – Where the applicant suggests that it is only necessary at this stage to look at the issue of leave to appeal – Where this Court considers it necessary to look at the grounds of appeal, given their success will provide a basis for leave to appeal being granted – Where if leave is required, then the issues raised in the appeals and cross-appeal are sufficiently important that leave should be granted – Where the first respondent has an arguable case in the appeals and the second respondent has an arguable case in the cross-appeal – Where the appeals and the cross-appeal have a reasonable chance of success and thus to order security where the respondents are impecunious would be oppressive and would stifle the appeals and the cross-appeal – Where previously made unpaid costs orders can be explained and thus this fact does not justify the making of an order for security – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the respondents foreshadowed seeking costs given the dismissal of the application – Regime for the filing and serving of written submissions ordered.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117(2) and 117(2A)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 15.71, 19.05(2)

Adult Guardian and Mother’s parents and B and Child’s Representative (2002) FLC 93-116
Faden & Faden (No 3) [2011] FamCA 897
Halsbury & Halsbury [2008] FamCAFC 170
Martin & Martin and Anor (No. 4) [2014] FamCA 442
Whitecross & Reilly [2016] FamCA 254

APPLICANT:

Ms Beadle

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Ms Goodridge

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Mr Goodridge

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

10573

2015

APPEAL NUMBERS:

SOA

64 & 70

2019

DATE DELIVERED:

16 April 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Adelaide

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Strickland J

HEARING DATE:

13 March 2020

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATES:

11 October 2019

30 October 2019

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2019] FamCA 709
[2019] FamCA 786

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Dr R Smith

SOLICITORS FOR THE APPLICANT:

Berry Family Law

COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT:

Mr Bartfeld of
Queen’s Counsel

SOLICITORS FOR THE FIRST

RESPONDENT:

Kennedy Partners

COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND

RESPONDENT:

Ms Smallwood of
Senior Counsel

SOLICITORS FOR THE SECOND

RESPONDENT:

Aston Legal Group

Orders made 13 March 2020

The Application in an Appeal filed on 31 January 2020 be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED THAT:

When the reasons for judgment issue an order setting out a regime for the filing of submissions in relation to the question of costs will be provided.

Orders made 16 April 2020

Within 21 days of the date hereof the first and second respondents file and serve written submissions in relation to the question of costs.
Within 14 days of the receipt…

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 BEADLE & GOODRIDGE

Details

AGLC: BEADLE & GOODRIDGE [2020] FamCAFC 82
Case: [2020] FamCAFC 82
Decision Date: 16 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Beadle & Goodridge, the respondents, who were impecunious, applied for security for costs in relation to an appeal. The applicants contested the application on the basis that the respondents' financial status alone was insufficient grounds for requiring security, and that the appeal had sufficient merit to warrant leave. The court found that the grounds of appeal, if successful, would support a grant of leave. Additionally, the appeals and cross-appeal had a reasonable chance of success, and ordering security for the impecunious respondents would be oppressive and stifle the proceedings. The court also noted that previous unpaid costs orders did not justify a new order for security. Consequently, the application for security for costs was dismissed.

In addressing the respondents' indication that they would seek costs following the dismissal of the application, the court ordered a specific regime for the filing and serving of written submissions. This was done to manage the proceedings efficiently and ensure that the costs issue was addressed in an orderly fashion.

Orders