Bustos and Bustos

[2019] FCCA 3522

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BUSTOS & BUSTOS [2019] FCCA 3522

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Costs – application for adult child maintenance and child support departure – application discontinued – mutual costs applications.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975, ss.117, 121

Cases cited:
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225; (1993) 118 ALR 248; (1993) 28 IPR 561
Eames v Eames [2018] FamCAFC 204 (2018) 340 FLR 148; [2018] FLC 93-866
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397
Home Office v Harman  [1983] 1 AC 280; [1982] 1 All ER 532; [1982] 2 WLR 338
Loomis v ML Lawyer (2016) FLC 93-731; [2016] FamCAFC 168

Applicant: MS BUSTOS

Respondent: MR BUSTOS

File Number: MLC 8200 of 2009

Judgment of: Judge Riley

Hearing date: by written submissions

Date of last submission: 1 November 2019

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 5 December 2019

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the applicant: None

Solicitors for the applicant: Manby & Scott

Counsel for the respondent: Johannes Schmidt

Solicitors for the respondent: Vic Rajah Family Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of, and incidental to, these proceedings on an indemnity basis, fixed in the sum of $15,099.40.

NOTATIONS

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 provides that it is an offence punishable by imprisonment for up to one year to publish or disseminate to the public any account of family law proceedings which identifies the parties, witnesses or other people concerned with the proceedings, unless specifically authorised by the court.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 8200 of 2009

MS BUSTOS

Applicant

And

MR BUSTOS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This is an application for mutual costs orders under s.117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”). 

2. By way of background, the parties were married in 1991 and separated in 2009. There were two children of the relationship, Ms A, who is now 21 years old, and [X], who is now 17 years old. Final parenting and property orders were made by consent on 17 March 2010. 

3. On 13 May 2010, the mother filed an application in a case seeking certain orders relating to property. The application in a case was dismissed by Hughes FM, as her Honour then was. Her Honour also ordered the mother to pay the father’s costs of the application in a case fixed in the sum $2,875. 

4. The father said, and it was not challenged, that:

   a)he lost his job in April 2018;

   b)the Department of Human Services accepted his reduced estimated income for child support purposes;

   c)the mother objected;

   d)the Department disallowed the objection; and

   e)the father has always paid child support as assessed.

5. On 22 October 2018, the mother issued proceedings in Court A seeking preliminary discovery in relation to child support.…