Boston and Boston (No 4)

[2016] FamCA 1150

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BOSTON & BOSTON (NO 4) [2016] FamCA 1150

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – determination of costs – where consideration is given to whether the circumstances justify the making of an order for costs – where consideration is given to s 117(2A) factors – where no order is made for costs.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117

Boston & Boston (No 3) [2013] FamCA 923

APPLICANT: Ms Boston

RESPONDENT: Mr Boston

FILE NUMBER: ADC 1946 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 16 December 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

PLACE HEARD: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Dawe J

HEARING DATE: 16 December 2016

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: n/a

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: In person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Birchall

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Norman Waterhouse Lawyers

Orders

1. There be no order as to costs.

2. All matters are removed from the active pending list.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Boston & Boston (No 4) 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 ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 1946 of 2012

Ms Boston

Applicant

And

Mr Boston

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I am now dealing with the issues in relation to the costs sought by the husband.  He is seeking costs of the trial that was before me commencing on 5 October 2016 and concluding on 9 November 2016 for which I have delivered judgment on 12 December 2016.  He is seeking costs of that trial on an indemnity basis. The husband is also seeking costs in relation to two interim applications brought in relation to the obtaining of an authority to ANZ and then a further application brought necessarily as a result of the wife’s withdrawal of that authority and the need for the variation of the previous orders that I have made.  He is seeking costs in relation to those two interim matters on the scale basis. 

2. The wife is also seeking costs against the husband in relation to costs which she has incurred in these proceedings being the costs of various lawyers.  She was also seeking costs in relation to fees incurred as a result of litigation in relation to the company R Pty Ltd. 

3. When dealing with these matters, I have to take into account the background to these proceedings.  The proceedings originally commenced in May 2012 and therefore there have been substantial costs incurred when the parties have from time to time been represented by solicitors and counsel. 

4. Orders in relation to the child, RR, were made in March 2015 and July 2015.  The orders which were made by consent on 20 March 2015 include at paragraph 20:

   The question of the costs of the children’s proceedings are reserved to the final determination of the property settlement proceedings.

5. The final orders in relation to the child, RR, were resolved by consent orders being made dealing with matters save and except those…