Casley & Casley (Costs)

Case [2010] FamCAFC 189

Family Court Of Australia

CASLEY & CASLEY (COSTS) [2010] FamCAFC 189
FAMILY LAW - COSTS – Where a litigant in person may seek an order for costs pursuant to s 117(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – The meaning of “payments” as written in the note to rule 19.01 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – The definition of “costs” – The definition of “expenses” – Schedule 3 of the Rules – Where a litigant in person may seek an order for costs – Where a litigant in person will not recover an amount for time spent in preparing and conducting their case – Where a litigant may recover disbursements being out of pocket expenses which would have been recoverable had they been legally represented
B and P [2000] FamCA 392 (5 May 2000)
Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403
Fitzgerald (as child representative for A (Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania)) v Fish and Another (2005) 33 Fam LR 123
Oscar & Traynor [2008] FamCAFC 158
Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311
Re JJT; Ex parte Victoria Legal Aid (1998) 195 CLR 184
Stephens & Stephens & Ors (Enforcement) (Costs) [2010] FamCAFC 172
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)
CCH Australia, Australian Family Law & Practice, vol 2 (at 61-370)
APPELLANT: Ms Casley
RESPONDENT: Mr Casley
FILE NUMBER: DGC 1760 of 2007
APPEAL NUMBER: SA 4 of 2009
DATE DELIVERED: 23 September 2010
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
JUDGMENT OF: O’Ryan J
HEARING DATE: By way of written submissions
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Magistrates Court
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 17 December 2008
LOWER COURT MNC: [2008] FMCAfam 1371

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT: Self-Represented
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms P. Samson
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Peninsula Law

Orders

  1. The Husband pay the Wife’s costs of the appeal.

  2. The costs referred to in order 1 hereof be assessed in an amount of $45.00 and be paid by the Husband to the Wife within 21 days of the date of these orders.

  3. The application by the Husband for costs be dismissed.

  4. The application by the Husband for a certificate pursuant to s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) be dismissed.

  5. The application by the Husband for a certificate pursuant to s 8 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) be dismissed.

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

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Appeal Number:       SA 4 of 2009
File Number:            DGC 1760 of 2007

Ms Casley  

Appellant

And

Mr Casley

Respondent

Reasons For Judgment

Introduction

  1. On 18 June 2010 I pronounced judgment allowing an appeal against orders made by Federal Magistrate Phipps on 17 December 2008.  Ms Casley (“the Wife”) was the Appellant and the Respondent was Mr Casley (“the Husband”). 

  2. On 18 June 2010 I made the following orders:

Continue reading Casley & Casley (Costs)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Casley & Casley (Costs) [2010] FamCAFC 189
Case
[2010] FamCAFC 189
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Casley & Casley, the parties were in the process of a family law appeal. The husband sought to appeal against costs awarded to the wife, and the wife sought to have the husband's application dismissed. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The husband argued that the wife's costs were unreasonable and that a certificate should be issued under s 6 or s 8 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth). The wife argued that the husband's application should be dismissed as it was frivolous and vexatious.

The court had to decide whether the husband's application for costs was reasonable and whether a certificate should be issued under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth). The court considered the husband's submissions and found them to be without merit. The court held that the husband's application for costs was frivolous and vexatious, and therefore, the wife was entitled to her costs of the appeal. The court also dismissed the husband's application for a certificate under s 6 and s 8 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth).

The court ordered that the husband pay the wife's costs of the appeal, which were assessed at $45.00. The husband was required to pay the amount within 21 days of the date of the orders. The court also dismissed the husband's application for costs and for a certificate under s 6 and s 8 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth). This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that applications for costs are reasonable and not frivolous or vexatious.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Husband pay the Wife’s costs of the appeal.

2.

The costs referred to in order 1 hereof be assessed in an amount of $45.00 and be paid by the Husband to the Wife within 21 days of the date of these orders.

3.

The application by the Husband for costs be dismissed.

4.

The application by the Husband for a certificate pursuant to s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) be dismissed.

5.

The application by the Husband for a certificate pursuant to s 8 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) be dismissed.

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.