CAINE & CAINE (No.2)

Case [2020] FCCA 3473

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CAINE & CAINE (No.2) [2020] FCCA 3473

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW– The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and related legislation – Marriage counselling, mediation and arbitration – procedural fairness – adequacy of reasons.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.13C, 13E, 13H, 13J, 13K, 117(2)
Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth), regs. 67I, 67P
Cases cited:
Bevan & Bevan (2014) FLC ¶93–572
Braddon & Braddon [2018] FCCA 1845
Brandt, In the marriage of (1997) 22 Fam LR 97
Calder & Calder (2016) FLC ¶93–691
Chapman & Chapman (2014) FLC ¶93–592
Dickons & Dickons (2012) 50 Fam LR 244
Ex Parte Fealey (1897) 18 NSWLR (L) 282
Goh v Ren (2020) 61 Fam LR 508
Gutherie & Gutherie (1995) FLC ¶92–647
Hala v Minister for Justice (2015) 145 ALD 552
Horsley v Horsley (1991) FLC 92-205
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Lovett v McGregor (2019) FLC 93-935
Marcon and Cussen [2017] FamCAFC 150
Merriman v Merriman (1993) FLC 92-422
Oil Basins Ltd v BHP Billiton Ltd (2007) 18 VR 346
Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Westzucker GmbH (No 2) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 130
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex Parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1
Scrymegeour & Scrymegeour (2014) FLC ¶93–600
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Snedden v Minister for Justice for the Commonwealth of Australia (2014) 230 FCR 82
Westport Insurance Corporation v Gordian Runoff Ltd (2011) 244 CLR 239
Applicant: MR CAINE
Respondent: MS CAINE
File Number: BRC 6733 of 2017
Judgment of: Judge Jarrett
Hearing date: 28 May 2020
Date of Last Submission: 28 May 2020
Delivered at: Brisbane
Delivered on: 18 December 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Crofts
Solicitors for the Applicant: McKean Park Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Alexander
Solicitors for the Respondent: Evans Brandon Family Lawyers

ORDERS

  1. The third further amended application in a case filed on 30 April, 2020 be dismissed.

  2. Any applications for costs shall be made by the applicant for any costs order filing and serving within 28 days of the date of these orders, written submissions specifying the orders for costs sought and the submissions in support of those orders together with any affidavit upon which the applicant for costs seeks to rely in the costs application.

  3. In the event an application for costs is made, the respondent to such application shall, no later than 28 days from the date upon which the respondent is served with the documents required by order 2 hereof, file and serve written submissions specifying the orders sought by the respondent and the submissions in support of those orders together with any affidavit upon which the respondent to the costs application seeks to rely.

  4. Any application shall be determined on the papers save where a party specifically requests an oral hearing on the question of costs in their written submissions filed in accordance with either order 2 or 3 hereof.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Caine…

Continue reading CAINE & CAINE (No.2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
CAINE & CAINE (No.2) [2020] FCCA 3473
Case
[2020] FCCA 3473
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Caine & Caine (No.2)*, Judge Jarrett of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered an application filed on 30 April 2020. The precise nature of the dispute between the parties is not detailed, but the case title and the catchwords suggest it involved family law matters, specifically concerning marriage counselling, mediation, and arbitration, and raised issues of procedural fairness and the adequacy of reasons.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the application filed on 30 April 2020 should be dismissed, and how any applications for costs should be managed. The court was required to determine the appropriate procedural steps for parties seeking or opposing costs orders, including the timeframe for submissions and the potential for oral hearings.

Judge Jarrett ordered the dismissal of the third further amended application filed on 30 April 2020. The court then established a detailed process for any subsequent applications for costs. This process mandates that the applicant for costs must file and serve written submissions and any supporting affidavits within 28 days. The respondent to such an application has a further 28 days to file and serve their own submissions and affidavits. Unless a party specifically requests an oral hearing in their submissions, any costs applications will be determined on the papers.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The third further amended application in a case filed on 30 April, 2020 be dismissed.

2.

Any applications for costs shall be made by the applicant for any costs order filing and serving within 28 days of the date of these orders, written submissions specifying the orders for costs sought and the submissions in support of those orders together with any affidavit upon which the applicant for costs seeks to rely in the costs application.

3.

In the event an application for costs is made, the respondent to such application shall, no later than 28 days from the date upon which the respondent is served with the documents required by order 2 hereof, file and serve written submissions specifying the orders sought by the respondent and the submissions in support of those orders together with any affidavit upon which the respondent to the costs application seeks to rely.

4.

Any application shall be determined on the papers save where a party specifically requests an oral hearing on the question of costs in their written submissions filed in accordance with either order 2 or 3 hereof.

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.