Carpenter and Carpenter and Ors

[2014] FamCA 1190

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CARPENTER & CARPENTER AND ORS [2014] FamCA 1190

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – COSTS – where the father seeks an order that the mother and/or her lawyers pay his legal fees of and incidental to parenting proceedings – where the father has failed to demonstrate that an order ought be made pursuant to r 19.10 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) as against the mother’s lawyers – whether an order for costs ought be made against the mother – whether s 117AB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) applies – where the circumstances did not justify a departure from s 117(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – father’s application for costs dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Legislation (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011 (Cth)

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

Carpenter & Carpenter [2014] FamCAFC 100
Charles & Charles [2007] FamCA 276
Child Support Registrar & Kanavos (2010) 44 Fam LR 422
I and I (No 2) (1995) 22 Fam LR 557
Prantage & Prantage [2013] FamCAFC 105

APPLICANT: Mr Carpenter

1^ST RESPONDENT: Ms Carpenter

2^ND RESPONDENT: Waterford Law

3^RD RESPONDENT: Ms Merkin of Counsel

FILE NUMBER: BRC3510 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 10 September 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Murphy J

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS COSTS: Father: 20 December 2012
Mother: 16 January 2013
Ms Merkin of Counsel:
16 January 2013
Waterford Law:
5 February 2013

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: Damien Greer Lawyers

THE 1^ST RESPONDENT: Self-Represented

THE 2^ND RESPONDENT: Waterford Law

THE 3^RD RESPONDENT: Carter Newell

Orders

1. That the husband’s application for costs as against the wife be dismissed.

2. That the husband’s application for costs as against the wife’s lawyers be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Carpenter & Carpenter and Ors 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 BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC3510 of 2011

Mr Carpenter

Applicant

And

Ms Carpenter

1^ST Respondent

And

Waterford Law

2^ND Respondent

And

Ms Merkin of Counsel

3^RD Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 29 November 2012 I made parenting orders consequent upon a trial that spanned some six days.  As part of those orders, I directed that any applications for costs to be made by the filing of written submissions.   On 20 December 2012 the father made such an application. 

2. The mother’s appeal against my parenting orders intervened.   On 18 June 2014, the Full Court dismissed that appeal (Carpenter & Carpenter [2014] FamCAFC 100).

3. These reasons pertain to the father’s application for an order that “…the Wife and/or her lawyers pay his costs of and incidental to [the trial] proceedings on an indemnity basis.” 

4. The order sought by the father is not otherwise particularised.  For example “lawyers” is not further defined and no specific orders referable to specific respondents are sought.  It is assumed…