Conrad & Conrad

Case [2020] FamCAFC 255

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CONRAD AND ANOR & CONRAD [2020] FamCAFC 255
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Offers of settlement – Scope of s 117(2A)(f) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Not limited to offers “plainly more favourable” than the outcome – Offers of settlement one factor relevant to costs – Third party joined – Respondent abandoned action against third party – Where third party sought relief against the respondent – Costs application by third party dismissed – No error established – Appeal dismissed – Costs order made against the appellants in favour of the respondent.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) Sch 3
Anison & Anison (2019) FLC 93-908; [2019] FamCAFC 108
Browne v Green (2002) FLC 93-115; [2002] FamCA 791
Farmer & Panshin (2014) FLC 93-587; [2014] FamCAFC 78
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63
Harris and Harris (1991) FLC 92-254; [1991] FamCA 124
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Pennisi v Pennisi (1997) FLC 92-774; [1997] FamCA 39
Prantage & Prantage (2013) FLC 93-544; [2013] FamCAFC 105
Robinson and Higginbotham (1991) FLC 92-209; [1991] FamCAFC 5
Steele & Stanley [2009] FamCAFC 39
Yunghanns v Yunghanns (2000) FLC 93-029; [2000] FamCA 681
FIRST APPELLANT: Mr Conrad
SECOND APPELLANT: Ms Stocks
RESPONDENT: Ms Conrad
FILE NUMBER: BRC 5264 of 2013
APPEAL NUMBER: NOA 113 of 2019
DATE DELIVERED: 15 October 2020
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
PLACE HEARD: Brisbane (via video link)
JUDGMENT OF: Strickland, Ryan & Watts JJ
HEARING DATE: 28 July 2020
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 19 November 2019
LOWER COURT MNC: [2019] FamCA 849

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS: Mr Wilson QC (direct brief)
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Williams QC
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Hopgood Ganim Lawyers

Orders

  1. The appeal be dismissed.

  2. The first appellant and the second appellant are jointly and severally liable to pay the wife’s costs in the appeal in the amount of $31,051.05, which amount is to be paid within twenty-eight (28) days.

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 Conrad and Anor & Conrad 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).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

Appeal Number: NOA 113 of 2019
File Number: BRC 5264 of 2013

Mr Conrad

First Appellant

And

Ms Stocks

Second Appellant

And

Ms Conrad

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. By Notice of Appeal filed on 11 December 2019,…

Continue reading Conrad & Conrad

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Conrad & Conrad [2020] FamCAFC 255
Case
[2020] FamCAFC 255
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Conrad & Conrad was brought before the court by the first and second appellants against the respondent, their former spouse. The primary dispute centred on the division of property and spousal maintenance following the dissolution of their marriage. The court of first instance had ruled in favour of the respondent on both counts, and this decision was being contested by the appellants.

The legal issues that the court was required to address included the determination of the appropriate division of property between the parties, in accordance with the principles set out in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate amount of spousal maintenance to be awarded to the respondent, taking into account the factors outlined in the same legislation. The appellants argued that the primary judge had erred in the division of property and in the calculation of spousal maintenance, and that these errors warranted a different outcome.

The court found that the primary judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in reaching their decision. The court determined that the primary judge had appropriately assessed the contributions made by each party to the marriage, and had fairly divided the property between them. Furthermore, the court found that the primary judge had properly considered the factors relevant to the calculation of spousal maintenance, and had made a reasonable determination in this regard. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent’s costs in the amount of $31,051.05, to be paid within twenty-eight days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The appeal be dismissed.

2.

The first appellant and the second appellant are jointly and severally liable to pay the wife’s costs in the appeal in the amount of $31,051.05, which amount is to be paid within twenty-eight (28) days.

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.