Connor and Langton (Costs)

[2012] FamCA 896

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CONNOR & LANGTON (COSTS) [2012] FamCA 896

FAMILY LAW – Costs – Indemnity Costs – costs against a solicitor -

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Anstis & Anstis and Anor (No 2) (2000) FLC 93-014
Botany Municipal Council v Secretary, Department of Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (1992) 34 FCR 412; 27 ALD 481 at 484
Cassidy & Murray (1995) FLC 92-633
Colgate Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225;
In the Marriage of Kohan(1992) 16 Fam LR 245; (1993) FLC 92–340 (FC)
JEL v DDF (Repayment on Appeal, and Costs) (2001) 28 Fam LR 119; FLC 93–083
In the Marriage of Munday and Bowman(1997) 22 Fam LR 321
NMFM Property Pty Ltd v Citibank Ltd (No 11) [2001] FCA 480
Starkey v Starkey (2009) 41 Fam LR 177
Stephens v Stephens (2010) 44 Fam LR 117
White & Tulloch White (1995) 19 Fam LR 696

APPLICANT: Ms Connor

RESPONDENT: Mr Langton

FILE NUMBER: SYC 5094 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 31 October 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Le Poer Trench J

HEARING DATE: 17 August 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Orders

1. The wife’s application for costs of the adjournment granted on 21 June 2011 is dismissed.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC

Ms Connor

Applicant

And

Mr Langton

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. On 28 March 2012, I made orders for final property settlement between the parties and provided reasons for those orders. The matter had been heard on 20 and 21 June 2011 and again from 28 February until 2 March 2012.

2. On 21 June 2011, I granted an adjournment of the proceeding, which at that time was in its second day of final hearing. The adjournment was applied for by the husband, and in granting that adjournment, I made the following order “The wife’s costs of the adjournment are reserved.”

3. The wife pursues the costs of the adjournment granted on 21 June 2011. On 17 August 2012, I made directions for each of the parties to file written submissions.  The wife’s submissions were provided on or about 28 September 2012 and the respondent husband solicitor’s submissions were provided on or about 19 October 2012. The submissions made on behalf of the husband were received on 26 October 2012.

4. As stated earlier, I delivered a judgment stating the reasons for granting the adjournment of the hearing at the application of the husband on 21 June 2011. I here incorporate that judgement as background to the consideration of the current application. As will be seen from those reasons, I deferred any determination of the wife’s application that the husband…