Charisteas & Charisteas

In the case of Charisteas & Charisteas, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Appellate Division considered an appeal arising from complex family law proceedings. The appeal was brought by the husband against orders that dismissed his application to restrain the wife’s lawyers from representing her, and a dollar-for-dollar costs order that required him to contribute to the wife’s legal fees. The court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the husband’s application for injunctive relief against the wife’s legal representatives and whether the primary judge correctly exercised their discretion in making the dollar-for-dollar costs order.

The court found that the husband had established a ground of appeal concerning the primary judge’s decision to dismiss his application for restraints against the wife’s legal representatives. The court held that the primary judge should have concluded that a fair-minded, reasonably informed member of the public would consider that the proper administration of justice required the restraints. The court also found that the primary judge erred in making the dollar-for-dollar costs order as there was no consideration of the recoverability of costs, as required by section 117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The appeal was allowed, and the orders were set aside, with the application for an interim costs order against the husband remitted for rehearing.

The court ordered that the husband is granted leave to appeal and that the appeal is allowed. The wife is restrained from instructing the same lawyers who are acting for the litigation funder, and Ms D, the junior counsel, is restrained from representing the wife in these proceedings. The orders concerning the interim costs application are set aside, and the matter is remitted for rehearing. The parties are required to confer in respect to costs and, if unable to reach an agreement, file written submissions on the appropriate costs order within 28 days.