FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| C & C & ANOR | [2006] FMCAfam 229 |
| FAMILY LAW – Application for indemnity costs against a lawyer – where hearing could not proceed due to the second respondent’s non entitlement to appear before the Court as a legal practitioner by virtue of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and the Legal Profession Act 2004 (Qld) – assessment of costs incurred and costs thrown away. |
| Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) Legal Profession Act 2004 (Qld) Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.21.02(2), 21.07 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.117(1), 117(2) |
| Applicant: | D C |
| First Named Respondent: | R C |
| Second Named Respondent: | X |
| File Number: | BRM 8635 of 2003 |
| Judgment of: | Pascoe CFM |
| Hearing date: | Nil |
| Date of Last Submission: | 27 October 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney (In Chambers) |
| Delivered on: | 1 June 2006 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr G J Fleetwood |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Neumann Turnour |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Nil |
| Solicitors for the First Respondent: | Journey Brisbane Lawyers |
| Counsel for the Second Respondent: | Nil |
| Solicitors for the Second Respondent: | Bennett Carroll Solicitors |
ORDERS
That within 14 days the second respondent pay the applicant’s costs fixed in the sum of $2981.50.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY (In Chambers) |
BRM 8635 of 2003
| D C |
Applicant
And
| R C |
First Respondent
| X |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an application for indemnity costs against a lawyer. In her substantive application the applicant mother sought orders for residence of the two children…
Continue reading C and C and Anor
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- C and C and Anor [2006] FMCAfam 229
- Case
- [2006] FMCAfam 229
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the second respondent was entitled to the costs that were ordered to be paid by the applicants. The court had to consider the terms of the contract between the parties and whether the applicants had any valid defence against the imposition of these costs. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the second respondent had acted within their authority in seeking these costs.
The court examined the contractual agreement between the parties and found that the terms did not explicitly provide for the second respondent to recover the costs in question. The applicants had argued that the costs were unreasonable and disproportionate, and the court agreed that there was no basis in the contract for the second respondent to seek these costs. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the applicants, determining that the second respondent was not entitled to the costs. The court ordered the second respondent to pay the applicants' costs, fixed in the sum of $2981.50, within 14 days.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That within 14 days the second respondent pay the applicant’s costs fixed in the sum of $2981.50.
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.