Benworth and Benworth (Costs)

Link copied
Case Copied 6 min read

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BENWORTH & BENWORTH (COSTS) [2012] FamCAFC 116
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – where the appellant wife was successful on two out of 11 grounds of appeal – where the respondent husband seeks a costs certificate pursuant to s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) (“Costs Act”) in respect of the two successful grounds of appeal, and an order that the appellant pay his costs of and incidental to the remaining nine grounds – where the appellant similarly seeks a costs certificate pursuant to s 6 of the Costs Act – where s 6 pertains solely to respondents – where ss 7 and 9 of the Costs Act pertain to appellants – where a precondition to the exercise of power pursuant to ss 6, 7 and 9 is a determination of the question of the costs of the appeal – consideration of s 117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – where the Court is not persuaded that the circumstances of this case justify an order for costs being made – where the parties ordered to bear their own costs.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth)

Fitzgerald(as Child Representative for A (Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania)) v Fish and Another (2005) 33 Fam LR 123
In the Marriage of I and I (No 2) (1995) FLC 92-625
Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311
APPLICANT: Ms Benworth
RESPONDENT: Mr Benworth
FILE NUMBER: SYC 8541 of 2007
APPEAL NUMBER: EA 74 of 2011
DATE DELIVERED: 9 August 2012
PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane
JUDGMENT OF: Bryant CJ, Strickland and Murphy JJ
HEARING DATE: By way of written submissions
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 13 May 2011
LOWER COURT MNC: [2011] FamCA 328

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr M Kearney
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Reid Family Lawyers
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms L Judge
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Goldrick Farrell Mullan Solicitors

Orders

  1. The time for the filing of written submissions as to costs by the respondent husband be extended so as to permit reliance upon submissions filed 30 March 2012.

  2. Each party shall bear their own costs of and incidental to this appeal.

  3. The application by each party for certificates pursuant to the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) be dismissed.

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

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 74 of 2011
File Number: SYC 8541 of 2007

MS BENWORTH

Appellant

And

MR BENWORTH

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(COSTS)

  1. At the conclusion of this appeal, orders were made for the filing of written submissions as to costs. Submissions by each of the parties were subsequently received.  The respondent husband’s submissions were received two days beyond the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Benworth and Benworth (Costs) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2012] FamCAFC 116
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Benworth and Benworth involved a dispute between the parties regarding costs associated with a family law matter. The case was heard and determined by the Family Court of Australia. The respondent husband filed submissions on 30 March 2012, and sought an extension of time to file written submissions regarding costs. The applicant opposed this extension. Both parties also sought certificates of costs pursuant to the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth).

The court was required to decide whether the respondent's submissions filed on 30 March 2012 could be relied upon, and whether an extension of time to file written submissions should be granted. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether to issue certificates of costs to either party.

The court granted the application for an extension of time, finding that the respondent's submissions filed on 30 March 2012 could be relied upon. The court ordered that each party bear their own costs of and incidental to the appeal. Furthermore, the court dismissed the applications for certificates of costs, finding that neither party was entitled to such a certificate under the relevant legislation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The time for the filing of written submissions as to costs by the respondent husband be extended so as to permit reliance upon submissions filed 30 March 2012.

2.

Each party shall bear their own costs of and incidental to this appeal.

3.

The application by each party for certificates pursuant to the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) be dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.