Bondelmonte & Bondelmonte & Ors (No 2) - [2018] FamCAFC 249

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BONDELMONTE & BONDELMONTE AND ORS (NO. 2)

[2018] FamCAFC 249

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Application for costs by the first respondent following a successful appeal – Where the appellant seeks costs in the amount of $45,000 – Uncertainty as to whether the sum sought is on an indemnity or party-party basis – Where the first respondent was wholly unsuccessful – Offer of compromise made by the appellant – Order for costs appropriate in circumstances of clear error by the primary judge – Wife found not to be impecunious – No proper basis for allowing costs in the amount of $45,000 – Order for costs made in the amount of $7,500.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117

Boldemonte & Bondelmonte and Ors [2018] FamCAFC 179

APPELLANT:

Ms LL Bondelmonte

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Ms Bondelmonte

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Mr V Bondelmone

THIRD RESPONDENT:

Q Finances Pty Limited

FOURTH RESPONDENT:

KK Pty Ltd

FIFTH RESPONDENT:

D1 Pty Ltd

SIXTH RESPONDENT:

ABC Finances Pty Limited

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

4839

2011

APPEAL NUMBER:

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

13 December 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

In chambers

JUDGMENT OF:

Ainslie-Wallace, Ryan & Aldridge JJ

HEARING DATE:

By way of written submissions

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

15 November 2017

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2017] FamCA 924

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Lethbridge SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

Braddon Marx Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT:

Mr Todd

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND

RESPONDENT:

No appearance

SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH AND SIXTH RESPONDENTS:

No appearance

Orders

The first respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal in the sum of $7,500 within twenty-eight (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 Bondelmonte & Bondelmonte and Ors (No. 2) 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).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 5 of 2018
File Number: SYC 4839 of 2011

Ms LL Bondelmonte

Appellant

And

Ms Bondelmonte

First Respondent

And

Mr V Bondelmonte

Second Respondent

And

Q Finances Pty Limited

Third Respondent

And

KK Pty Ltd

Fourth Respondent

And

D1 Pty Ltd

Fifth Respondent

And

ABC Finances Pty Limited

Sixth Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ms LL Bondelmonte (“the appellant”) appealed against orders made by Watts J on 15 November 2017. The orders concerned the inspection of documents relating to third parties and relevantly to this appeal, the inspection of the appellant’s documents relating to proceedings conducted…

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 Bondelmonte & Bondelmonte & Ors (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Bondelmonte & Bondelmonte & Ors (No 2) [2018] FamCAFC 249
Case: [2018] FamCAFC 249
Decision Date: 13 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bondelmonte & Bondelmonte & Ors (No 2), the parties involved were the appellant and the respondents. The dispute arose from a matter that had previously been considered by the court. The case was heard in the relevant appellate court. The appellant sought to appeal a decision made by the lower court, raising issues regarding the correctness of the lower court's judgment.

The central legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the lower court had correctly interpreted certain provisions of the law and whether the lower court had properly applied the relevant principles in reaching its decision. The appellant argued that the lower court had erred in its interpretation and application of the law, leading to an unjust outcome.

The court examined the arguments put forward by both parties and considered the relevant legal principles. After careful deliberation, the court found that the lower court had indeed made errors in its interpretation and application of the law. The court held that the lower court's decision was incorrect and that the appeal should be allowed. The court ordered that the first respondent pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal in the sum of $7,500 within twenty-eight days. The form of the order was subject to the entry of the order in the court's records.

Orders

Orders of the court

The first respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal in the sum of $7,500 within twenty-eight (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.