COLE & INGRAM

[2020] FamCA 966

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COLE & INGRAM [2020] FamCA 966

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application by the mother for costs in relation to substantive parenting and contravention proceedings – Consideration of the principles in s 117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Costs order against the father justified – Not appropriate to award indemnity costs – Orders made for the father to pay the mother’s costs on a solicitor-client basis in a fixed sum

FAMILY LAW – Recommendation for law reform in terms of the repeal of s117(1) of the Family Law Act

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 19.18

Baum & Lokare (No. 2) [2019] FamCA 292
Catlin & Catlin [2018] FamCA 235
Hawkins & Roe (2012) 47 Fam LR 526
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd[2007] NSWSC 23
Lenardi & Lenardi (No.2) [2011] FamCA 604
Parke & the Estate of the Late A Parke(2016) FLC 93-748
Pearson & Pearson [2020] FamCA 329
Prantage & Prantage (2013) FLC 93-544
Worth & Worth (No.2) (2019) FLC 93-910
Wrensted & Eades (2016) FLC 93-697

APPLICANT: Ms Cole

RESPONDENT: Mr Ingram

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania

FILE NUMBER: HBC 330 of 2018

DATE DELIVERED: 18 November 2020

PLACE DELIVERED: Hobart

PLACE HEARD: Hobart

JUDGMENT OF: Benjamin J

HEARING DATE: 10 September 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mrs Mooney SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: PWB Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Turnbull SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Murdoch Clarke

Orders

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order Mr Ingram shall pay the sum of $75,062 to Ms Cole (‘the mother’) being the mother’s legal costs of and incidental to these proceedings including her costs application.

2. All other extant costs applications are dismissed.

IT IS CERTIFIED

1. Pursuant to r 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) it was reasonable to engage senior counsel to attend.

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 Cole & Ingram 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 HOBART

FILE NUMBER: HBC330/2018

MS COLE

Applicant

And

MR INGRAM

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. In family law proceedings few costs orders are meaningfully pursued and relatively few costs orders are made.  This is particularly the case in parenting disputes.

2. When costs orders are made, they are generally on a party/party basis.  Such costs often bear little or no relationship to the actual costs incurred by a party in the proceedings.