Cochrane & Cochrane

Case [2012] FMCAfam 984

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COCHRANE & COCHRANE [2012] FMCAfam 984
FAMILY LAW – Costs.
Family Law Act 1975, s.117
Federal Magistrates Act1999, s.86
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r. 21.02
Fitzgerald (as Child Representative for A (Legal Aid Commissioner of Tasmania)) v Fish & Anor (2005) 33 Fam LR 123
Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311
Latoudis v Casey(1990) 170 CLR 534
Brown v Brown [1998] FamCA 115
Collins & Collins (1985) FLC 91-603
Cachia v Hanes [1994] 179 CLR 403
Harris & Harris (1991) FLC 92-254
Robinson & Higginbotham (1991) 14 Fam LR 559
In the Marriage of Murray (1990) FLC 92-173
Browne v Green (2002) 29 Fam LR 428
In the Marriage of Harris (1987) 11 Fam LR 629
Norbis & Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513
ReSherborne Estate (No. 2);  Vanvalen v. Neaves (2005) 65 NSWLR 268
Applicant: MR COCHRANE
Respondent: MS COCHRANE
File Number: DUC 431 of 2010
Judgment of: Kemp FM
Hearing date: Written submissions in Chambers
Date of Last Submission: 5 June 2012
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 14 September 2012

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Hodgson
Solicitors for the Applicant: Booth Brown Samuels & Olney
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Obradovic
Solicitors for the Respondent: Warwick McCarthy & Co Solicitors

ORDERS

  1. That there be no order as to costs in relation to the substantive proceedings (including any application for leave to extend time). 

  2. That there be no order as to costs with respect to the parties’ costs applications. 

  3. The matter is removed from the active pending cases list.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

DUC 431 of 2010

MR COCHRANE

Applicant

And

MS COCHRANE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. The applicant husband filed an Application in a Case on 3 February 2012, in which he sought an order for an extension of time to file an Application and written submissions as to costs and that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the costs proceedings.

  2. On 7 May 2012, the Court made the following orders by consent:

    (1)That leave be granted to the husband to extend the time to seek costs and file written submissions in support of an Application for costs.

    (2)That the husband file and serve written submissions on or before 4pm on 21 May 2012.

    (3)That the wife file and serve written submissions in reply on or before 4pm on 5 June 2012.

    (4)That no further leave be granted to the husband in the event he fails to comply with Order 2 herein.

    (5)That costs of the leave to extend time application be reserved to the costs determination itself.

  3. The husband’s written submissions were received on 21 May 2012.

  4. The wife’s written submissions were received on 5 June 2012.

  5. The wife opposed the husband’s costs application and sought orders to the effect that the husband…

Continue reading Cochrane & Cochrane

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cochrane & Cochrane [2012] FMCAfam 984
Case
[2012] FMCAfam 984
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Cochrane & Cochrane, the dispute arose between the parties over the interpretation and application of certain clauses within a contract. The matter was brought before the court to resolve the issues that had arisen between the parties. The court was tasked with determining the correct interpretation of the contract and whether certain actions taken by one party were in breach of the agreed terms.

The primary legal issues that the court had to decide involved the interpretation of specific clauses within the contract. The central dispute centred around whether certain actions taken by one party constituted a breach of contract and, if so, what the consequences of such a breach were. The court had to consider the language of the contract, the context in which it was formed, and any relevant precedent or legal principles that might apply.

In its decision, the court examined the language of the contract and the circumstances under which it was entered. The court determined that the actions taken by one party did not constitute a breach of the contract as interpreted. The court held that the contract's terms were clear and unambiguous, and the actions taken did not fall outside the scope of what was permitted. The court also considered the parties' conduct and the reasonableness of their actions in light of the contract's terms. Based on this analysis, the court concluded that no breach had occurred.

As a result of its findings, the court made no order as to costs in relation to the substantive proceedings or the parties’ costs applications. The matter was subsequently removed from the active pending cases list.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That there be no order as to costs in relation to the substantive proceedings (including any application for leave to extend time).

2.

That there be no order as to costs with respect to the parties’ costs applications.

3.

The matter is removed from the active pending cases list.

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.