BIGGS & POWELL

[2014] FamCA 1202

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BIGGS & POWELL [2014] FamCA 1202

FAMILY LAW –Contravention withdrawn – Costs appropriate.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Prantage [2012] FamCAFC 84

APPLICANT: Mr Biggs

RESPONDENT: Ms Powell

INTERVENOR:

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 8800 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 3 December 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 3 December 2014

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In Person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Matta

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Barbayannis Lawyers

Orders

1. That the applicant father have leave to withdraw his contravention application.

2. That all outstanding applications are otherwise dismissed.

3. That the father pay the mother’s costs fixed in the sum of $3000.

IT IS CERTIFIED:

1. That pursuant to Order 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Biggs & Powell 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 8800 of 2012

Mr Biggs

Applicant

And

Ms Powell

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for costs arising out of the fact that a contravention application against the mother, filed on 28 October 2014, has been withdrawn.  It is not appropriate that I delve into the circumstances of the application, save this:  that I remarked earlier this morning, when one looks at the orders that were alleged to have been breached, to use legal jargon, they were doomed to fail.  These parties in February 2014 could not agree on a whole raft of things associated with their two children, one of the most significant of which was the kindergarten which their youngest child was to attend in 2015.  The allegations on their face would appear to be serious, but when one looks at them in the context of the orders to which I have just referred, one wonders what the applicant expected the Court would be able to do to solve the problem. 

2. It seems to me, in circumstances where the respondent says that she was going to, deny every allegation, one must wonder why the application was brought if, indeed, the allegations were never going to succeed.  I now have a problem where the applicant is withdrawing the application.  The mother has said that she is impecunious.  She is a woman of straw.  She borrowed money to have her representation today.  She is stressed by these proceedings, which she says have been going on and, indeed, there is about to be another proceeding in the State Magistrates Court for an intervention order.  It is ironic in this case that the final orders were made by consent in February this year, and here we are, less than nine months later, back in Court arguing about whether or not someone has breached the order in relation to such things as a child attending a kindergarten in 2015, denigration of each other,…