CAZ & GAZ

[2005] FamCA 1203

[2005] FamCA 1203

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

IN THE FULL COURT
OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

Appeal No. EA 116 of 2004
File No. SYF 2316 of 2003

IN THE MATTER OF:

CAZ

Appellant Wife

- and -

GAZ

Respondent Husband

REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT OF THE FULL COURT
IN RELATION TO COSTS CERTIFICATES

CORAM:  Bryant CJ, Coleman and May JJ
HEARD:  By way of written submissions
JUDGEMENT:                   14 December 2005

APPEARANCES:  Gayle Meredith & Associates appeared on behalf of the Appellant Wife.

Christopher Mackay Lawyers appeared on behalf of the Respondent Husband.

1. On 4 May 2005 this Full Court heard an appeal by the wife against part of the orders of Rose J made on 15 October 2004. We reserved our judgment on that date and delivered orders and reasons for judgment on 4 August 2005.

1. Included in the orders of 4 August 2005 were certificates for the costs incurred in relation to the appeal for the wife, under section 9, and the husband, under section 6, of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981.

1. On 24 October 2005, the matter again came before us as a result of submissions by each of the parties concerning erroneous calculations and disputed capital gains tax liabilities within our judgment. The parties, however, were in agreement about some of these issues. It was necessary to hear submissions about other issues. Fortunately, ultimately the matter was resolved by consent.

1. On 7 November 2005, the wife filed a document titled Submissions in Relation to Costs Certificate that was “prepared on behalf of both parties”. In this, the wife’s solicitor submitted:

   … that both the Respondent and the Appellant wife have been put to unnecessary expense by something outside the control of either of them. Despite the fact that the matters were ultimately resolved by negotiation the Respondent to the appeal seeks either the issue of a further Certificate or an extension of the period which the original Certificate covers up to and including 24 October 2005.

2. It is clear that the circumstances which lead to the appearance of the parties before us on 24 October 2005 included mathematical errors and remaining issues that lead to the wife’s appeal against the trial Judge, Justice Rose.

1. Accordingly, we agree that costs certificates in relation to the appearance/proceedings before us on 24 October 2005 are appropriate in this case.

Orders

1. We propose, therefore, to make the following orders:

   1.The appellant wife is granted a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney General to authorise a payment under that Act to the wife in respect of the costs incurred by the wife in relation to the appeal.

2.That the respondent husband is granted a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney General to authorise a payment under that Act to the husband in respect of the costs incurred by the husband in relation to the appeal.