Bidal and Suriz

[2018] FamCA 287

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BIDAL & SURIZ [2018] FamCA 287

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where application for Review of Registrar’s orders as to costs – Where application successful and costs orders set aside – Where offer of settlement made and rejected – Where consideration of applicable principles – Where circumstances justify order for costs.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 19.18

Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 135 ALR 160 Collins and Collins (1985) FLC 91-603 Greedy and Greedy (1982) FLC 91-250 Hawkins & Roe [2012] FamCAFC 77 Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2007] NSWSC 23 Lenova & Lenova (Costs) [2011] FamCAFC 141 Luadaka v Luadaka (1998) FLC 92-830 Parke & the Estate of the Late A Parke (2016) FLC 93-748 Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311 Suriz & Bidal [2017] FamCA 1064

APPLICANT:

Ms Bidal

RESPONDENT: Mr Suriz

FILE NUMBER: PAC 5647 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 4 May 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Foster J

HEARING DATE: By way of written submissions last received on 9 March 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Fantin

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Pannu Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Druitt

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Marsdens Law Group

Orders

1. That within three months from this date the wife pay to the husband, or as he otherwise may direct in writing, by way of costs of and incidental to the husband’s Application for Review the sum of $2,500.00.

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 Bidal & Suriz 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 PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 5647  of 2016

Ms Bidal

Applicant

And

Mr Suriz

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The application for determination is the application for costs made by the husband arising from a Review of certain orders as to costs made by a Registrar. The orders for costs made by the Registrar were not confirmed on rehearing on review: Suriz & Bidal [2017] FamCA 1064.

2. The context of the present issue is found in the previous reasons for judgment:

   4.The proceedings were listed for the purposes of a case assessment conference on 13 March 2017. On that day the Registrar noted that the valuation of certain property of the parties needed to be undertaken. The Registrar ordered that the parties instruct a joint expert to value “the properties and to value such corporate interest as are required by the parties or…