Cluny and Skinner - [2019] FamCA 465

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CLUNY & SKINNER

[2019] FamCA 465

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the mother seeks that the father pay her costs for continuing to seek a variation of orders even after he filed a Notice of Discontinuance – S 117(2A) considerations – Where the court is not persuaded that the general rule in relation to costs is displaced – Where indemnity costs is not appropriate in this case – Where the mother did not put forward an alternative proposal for the applicable period of costs – Application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 117, 118
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 19.08, 19.10, 19.18

Skinner & Cluny [2018] FamCA 478
Skinner & Cluny (No 2) [2012] FamCA 465

Cluny & Skinner [2017] FamCA 255

Cluny & Skinner (No 2) [2017] FamCA 547
Cluny & Skinner [2018] FamCA 15

Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns (2000) FLC 93-029 adopting Sheppard J in Colgate-Palmolive Company & Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) FCR 225
Kohan & Kohan (1993) FLC 92-340
Muldoon & Carlyle (2012) FLC 93-513
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 364; J Corp Pty Ltd v Australian Building Labourers Federation Union of Workers (WA Branch)(No 2) [1993] FCA 42

Z (A Solicitor) v Limousin (Costs) [2010] FLC 93-433

APPLICANT:

Ms Cluny

RESPONDENT:

Mr Skinner

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

812

2010

DATE DELIVERED:

16 July 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

In Chambers

PLACE HEARD:

In Chambers

JUDGMENT OF:

Tree J

HEARING DATE:

Last submissions filed 21 March 2019

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

Feeney Family Law

THE RESPONDENT:

In person

Orders

The mother’s Application in a Case filed 5 March 2019 be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Cluny & Skinner has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CAIRNS

FILE NUMBER: BRC812/2010

Ms Cluny

Applicant

And

Mr Skinner

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

On 10 February 2014 the father commenced these proceedings by Initiating Application, by which he sought to have the parties’ only child to their relationship, B, currently 9 years of age (“the child”) move from the mother’s care into his. That was despite parenting orders having been made by Kent J only something less than two years earlier on 21 June 2012, at the conclusion of a trial. However ultimately, on 18 February 2019, final parenting orders were made by consent, which orders saw the child remain primarily in the mother’s care.
Prior to then, on…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Cluny and Skinner

Details

AGLC: Cluny and Skinner [2019] FamCA 465
Case: [2019] FamCA 465
Decision Date: 16 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Cluny and Skinner*, heard before Tree J, the dispute concerned an application filed by the mother on 5 March 2019. The specific nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it was brought before the court for determination.

The central legal issue before the court was the mother's application filed on 5 March 2019. The court was required to consider the merits of this application and decide whether it should be granted or dismissed.

Tree J dismissed the mother's application. The court's reasoning for this decision is not elaborated upon in the provided text. The final orders reflect this dismissal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The mother’s Application in a Case filed 5 March 2019 be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.