FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Chosar & Chosar (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 1391
File number(s): PAC 5076 of 2019 Judgment of: JUDGE NEWBRUN Date of judgment: 30 October 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Costs
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Costs
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117 Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 24 Date of hearing: 16 October 2023 Place: Parramatta Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Macarounas Solicitor for the Applicant: Rowlandson & Co Solicitors Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr Vassili ORDERS
PAC 5076 of 2019 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MS CHOSAR
Applicant
AND: MR CHOSAR
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE NEWBRUN
DATE OF ORDER:
30 OCTOBER 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The wife’s Application in a Proceeding filed 25 July 2023 is dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE NEWBRUN
This is the determination of the wife’s application for costs against the husband in relation to parenting and property proceedings which were the subject of final Orders made by the Court on 16 June 2023.[1]
[1] Chosar & Chosar [2023] FedCFamC2F 735.
The wife’s application for costs against the husband was set out in her Application in a Proceeding filed 25 July 2023.
The husband opposed the wife’s above Application as set out in his Response filed 11 August 2023.
PROPOSALS
The wife proposes:
1.That the respondent subject to order 2, pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to these proceedings.
2.That the respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to these proceedings:-
2.1on an indemnity basis; or
2.2.in the alternative to 2.1 on a solicitor/client basis, or in the alternative on a party/party basis as agreed or assessed; or
2.3in the alternative to orders 2.1 and 2.2, in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021; or
2.4in the alternative to 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, in lump sum form as assessed by this Honourable Court.
3.That the respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to this application.
The husband proposes:
1.That the Application in a Proceeding filed 14 July 2023 be dismissed.
2.That there…
Continue reading Chosar & Chosar (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Chosar & Chosar (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 1391
- Case
- [2023] FedCFamC2F 1391
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the wife had established a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a variation of the existing parenting orders, and whether there had been a significant change in financial circumstances that justified a reconsideration of the property settlement. The court was tasked with determining whether the wife's application met the necessary threshold for altering the previous court orders.
In its decision, the court found that the wife had not demonstrated a material change in circumstances that warranted a variation of the existing parenting arrangements. The court also concluded that the wife had not shown a significant change in financial circumstances to warrant a reconsideration of the property settlement. Consequently, the court dismissed the wife’s application for both parenting orders and property settlement variations. The court emphasised the importance of stability and consistency in parenting arrangements and the need for substantial evidence to justify changes in property settlements.
The court's final orders were that the wife’s application filed on 25 July 2023 was dismissed in its entirety, with no variations to the existing parenting orders or property settlement being made. The court also made an order for the husband to receive reimbursement of his legal costs associated with the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.The wife’s Application in a Proceeding filed 25 July 2023 is 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.