Conrad and Killen (No. 2)
Case
•
[2017] FamCA 906
•10 November 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Conrad and Killen (No. 2) [2017] FamCA 906
[2017] FamCA 906
10 November 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Conrad and Killen (No. 2)*, Cronin J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the father for costs and the dismissal of an application filed by the mother. The dispute concerned costs arising from earlier proceedings and a subsequent application.
The court was required to determine whether the mother should be ordered to pay the father's costs for proceedings initiated in April 2016 and a portion of the costs for the final hearing. Additionally, the court had to decide whether to dismiss the mother's application filed on 24 October 2017.
Cronin J ordered that the mother pay the father's costs in relation to the April 2016 proceedings and 50 per cent of the costs of the final hearing from the day after the matter was set down for trial. These costs were to be calculated according to the Family Law Rules 2004, either by agreement or assessment. The mother's application filed on 24 October 2017 was dismissed.
The court was required to determine whether the mother should be ordered to pay the father's costs for proceedings initiated in April 2016 and a portion of the costs for the final hearing. Additionally, the court had to decide whether to dismiss the mother's application filed on 24 October 2017.
Cronin J ordered that the mother pay the father's costs in relation to the April 2016 proceedings and 50 per cent of the costs of the final hearing from the day after the matter was set down for trial. These costs were to be calculated according to the Family Law Rules 2004, either by agreement or assessment. The mother's application filed on 24 October 2017 was dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
1
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty ltd
[1993] FCA 801
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty ltd
[1993] FCA 801
Oshlack v Richmond River Council
[1998] HCA 11