Bulleen and Bulleen

[2009] FamCA 1280

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BULLEEN & BULLEEN [2009] FamCA 1280

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Interim

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Bulleen

RESPONDENT: Mr Bulleen

FILE NUMBER: MLC 12431 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 30 October 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 30 October 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Dixon

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Gillian Coote Family Law

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Strum

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Gadens Lawyers

Orders

1. That the husband pay the wife’s costs of $3000 thrown away this day within one month.

2. That the application in a case filed is otherwise dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Bulleen & Bulleen is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 12431 of 2007

MS BULLEEN

Applicant

And

MR BULLEEN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for costs by the wife.  An application in a case was issued on 28 October seeking what might loosely be described as discovery.  It was, in effect, the production of cheque butts.  Those cheque butts have been delivered this morning.  A lot has happened in between the time the first request was made and today. 

2. The wife’s position is that she has had to go to the trouble of issuing the process to extract them from the husband and the husband’s position is that there is an objection on the grounds of relevance.  No concession has been made about that.  I will be in a much better position when I have heard the totality of the evidence.  It is still a fundamental obligation to provide documents that are requested.  Objection could be raised as to relevance today.  It has not been, and the documents have very sensibly been handed over.

3. I think this is a case where the order for costs should be made.  The circumstances under s 117 that justify an order are that the wife says that she wants to investigate a number of matters that may or may not be relevant in the ultimate scheme of things, but they are certainly matters on what I have seen that may have some relevance to the proceedings.

4. In terms of the other matters in s 117(2A), there are matters that will be canvassed in some detail about parties’ financial circumstances.  It would seem that in the scheme of things, the sum of costs pursued is relatively modest.  I make no finding as to misconduct.  It seems to me it is just sensible that the parties make as much effort as they can to exchange documents to alleviate the arguments at trial.

5. I propose to make an order that the husband pay the wife’s costs of $3000 thrown away. 

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin

Associate: 

Date:  24 November 2009