BEHZADI & AGASSI
Case
•
[2020] FamCA 1112
•24 November 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
BEHZADI & AGASSI [2020] FamCA 1112
[2020] FamCA 1112
24 November 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Behzadi & Agassi*, the applicant, Ms Behzadi, sought an order that the respondent, Ms Agassi, pay her costs of the proceedings. The matter came before Benjamin J in the Family Court of Australia.
The central legal issue before the court was the quantum and basis of any costs order to be made between the parties. Specifically, the court was required to determine whether the respondent should be ordered to pay the applicant's legal costs, and if so, on what basis and to what extent.
His Honour ordered that the respondent pay 50 per cent of the applicant's legal costs, to be agreed or assessed on a party/party basis in accordance with the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth). The court also certified that it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend the proceedings, pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth). Any other costs sought in relation to the costs application were discharged.
The central legal issue before the court was the quantum and basis of any costs order to be made between the parties. Specifically, the court was required to determine whether the respondent should be ordered to pay the applicant's legal costs, and if so, on what basis and to what extent.
His Honour ordered that the respondent pay 50 per cent of the applicant's legal costs, to be agreed or assessed on a party/party basis in accordance with the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth). The court also certified that it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend the proceedings, pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth). Any other costs sought in relation to the costs application were discharged.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
BEHZADI & AGASSI [2020] FamCA 1112
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
1
Hawkins & Roe
[2012] FamCAFC 77
Wrensted & Eades
[2016] FamCAFC 46
Baum & Lokare (No 2)
[2019] FamCA 292