Bolt and Waldo - [2018] FamCA 546

FAMILFAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BOLT & WALDO

[2018] FamCA 546

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application for costs on an indemnity basis arising from trial of de-facto financial dispute – Where the Respondent was wholly unsuccessful in that proceeding – Where the Applicant seeks an order for the Respondent to pay her costs on an indemnity basis, as per costs agreement, since the commencement of proceedings - Where the Respondent opposes any costs order being made – Where the Respondent has substantial wealth and is in a position to meet a costs order – Where the Applicant is entitled to a costs order – Where the indemnity basis is not applied – Ordered the Respondent pay the costs of the Applicant as agreed and in default of agreement, as assessed, to be paid within 42 days of agreement or assessment

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117

Colgate Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225
Graft & McCormick [2018] FamCAFC 82
Nada & Nettle [2014] FamCAFC 207

APPLICANT:

Ms Bolt

RESPONDENT:

Mr Waldo

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

558

2015

DATE DELIVERED:

23 May 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Newcastle

PLACE HEARD:

Newcastle

JUDGMENT OF:

Cleary J

HEARING DATE:

21 May 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Hutchings

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Curwen-Walker & Co. Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:	Dr Ingleby
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:	Duane Portway Family Law

Orders

That the Respondent Mr Waldo pay the costs of the Applicant Ms Bolt as agreed, and in default of agreement, as assessed; for the period from 24 October 2016 (excluding costs related to the parenting dispute between the parties).
Costs to be paid within 42 days of agreement or assessment.
Any application for costs in respect of this application to be filed and served within 28 days of the date of these orders, with response likewise within a further 28 days.

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 Bolt & Waldo 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 NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 558 of 2015

Ms Bolt

Applicant

And

Mr Waldo

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This is an application for costs, on an indemnity basis, by the applicant, Ms Bolt (“Ms Bolt”), against the respondent, Mr Waldo (“Mr Waldo”).
The application relates to a trial, in respect of a financial dispute, heard by me in Melbourne, over four days, in April and May 2017.
On 9 June 2017 judgment was delivered.
The parties agree that Ms Bolt…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bolt and Waldo

Details

AGLC: Bolt and Waldo [2018] FamCA 546
Case: [2018] FamCA 546
Decision Date: 23 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Bolt and Waldo, heard before Cleary J, the dispute concerned the costs associated with proceedings between the applicant, Ms Bolt, and the respondent, Mr Waldo. The specific nature of the underlying dispute, beyond a reference to a parenting dispute for which costs were excluded, is not detailed.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of which party should bear the costs of the proceedings, and for what period, with a specific exclusion for costs related to the parenting dispute. The court was required to consider the appropriate allocation of legal expenses arising from the litigation.

Cleary J ordered that Mr Waldo pay Ms Bolt's costs for the period from 24 October 2016, excluding costs pertaining to the parenting dispute. These costs are to be paid within 42 days of agreement or assessment. Furthermore, any application for costs related to the current application must be filed and served within 28 days of the court's orders, with a response to be filed within a further 28 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Respondent Mr Waldo pay the costs of the Applicant Ms Bolt as agreed, and in default of agreement, as assessed; for the period from 24 October 2016 (excluding costs related to the parenting dispute between the parties).

Costs to be paid within 42 days of agreement or assessment.

Any application for costs in respect of this application to be filed and served within 28 days of the date of these orders, with response likewise within a further 28 days.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.