Bechara and BOURAS and Anor

[2014] FamCA 975

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BECHARA & BOURAS AND ANOR [2014] FamCA 975

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Registrar – Review of decision – Costs Assessment – Where costs orders were made against the husband in the substantive proceeding – Where the husband did not file an objection to the preliminary costs assessment – Where the husband made an application to dispense with the requirements of rule 19.30 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – Where the application was dismissed by the Registrar – Where the Registrar made a costs assessment in favour of the respondents – Where the husband filed the application for review out of time – Where there was no evidence of the reason for delay – Application dismissed.

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rule 19.30

Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479

APPLICANT: CAMEEL BECHARA

FIRST RESPONDENT:	SOTIRIOS BOURAS
SECOND RESPONDENT	LABRINI BOURAS

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2145 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 13 November 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: REES J

HEARING DATE: 3 November 2014

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: State Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE 1^ST AND 2^ND RESPONDENTS: Mcdonell Milne Toltz Family Lawyers

Orders

IT IS ORDERED

1. That the Application in a Case, filed by Cameel Bechara (“the husband”) on 16 September 2014, be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Baghti & Banis and Anor has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2145 of 2009

CAMEEL BECHARA

Applicant

And

SOTIRIOS BOURAS

First Respondent

And

LABRINI BOURAS
Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Before the Court is an application by Cameel Bechara (“the husband”) to review orders and directions made in these proceedings by Senior Registrar Campbell on 12 August and 2 September 2014.

2. The respondents to this application were the second and third respondents in the substantive proceedings. In these reasons, they will be referred to as “the respondents”.

3. On 27 November 2012, in the substantive proceedings, Fowler J made orders, in favour of the respondents, that the husband pay their costs of and incidental to the trial on an indemnity basis.

4. The proceedings arise in circumstances where the respondents sought an assessment of the costs to which they were entitled pursuant to orders made by Fowler J. The respondents filed an application on 19 December 2013 which was subsequently amended. On 18 February 2014 a Notice Disputing Costs was filed by the husband.

5. On 14 March 2014 the husband filed an amended response.

6. On 17 March 2014 Johnston J made orders, by consent, that the husband pay any money he was to receive from the proceeds of sale of the jointly owned property into a controlled money account in the joint names of the solicitors for the respondents and himself.

7. On 8 May 2014 Senior Registrar Campbell issued a preliminary assessment in an amount of $109,160 and directed that any objection was…