Crafter & Crafter - [2013] FamCA 624

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CRAFTER & CRAFTER AND ORS

[2013] FamCA 624

FAMILY LAW – COSTS

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Fevia & Carmel-Fevia (Costs) [2010] FamCA 143
Haykal v Krawiec (No 4) [2012] FamCA 748
I and I (no. 2) (1995) FLC 92-625

APPLICANT:

Ms P Crafter

1^ST RESPONDENT:

Mr B Crafter

2^ND RESPONDENT:

M Crafter

3^RD RESPONDENT:

W Crafter

4^TH RESPONDENT:

D Pty Ltd

5^TH RESPONDENT:

P J Crafter

FILE NUMBER:

ADC

142

2007

DATE DELIVERED:

26 August 2013

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

By way of Written Submissions

JUDGMENT OF:

Cronin J

HEARING DATE:

24 May 2013

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED FROM:

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Tredrea

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Jo-Anne N Milen & Associates

COUNSEL FOR THE 1^ST RESPONDENT:

Mr Mcginn

SOLICITOR FOR THE 1^ST

RESPONDENT:

Lindleys Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE 2^ND, 3^RD, 4^TH AND 5^TH RESPONDENTS:

Mr Stockes

SOLICITOR FOR THE 2^ND, 3^RD, 4^TH & 5^TH RESPONDENTS:

Stokes Legal

Orders

That the husband pay one-half of the wife’s costs of the proceedings, including the application in relation to costs, by agreement and in default of agreement, as assessed on a party and party basis.
That the 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th named respondents pay one-half of the wife’s costs of these proceedings, including the application in relation to costs, by agreement, and in default of agreement, as assessed on a party and party basis.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Crafter and Crafter 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 142 of 2007

Ms P Crafter

Applicant

And

Mr B Crafter

1^stRespondent

And

M Crafter

2^nd Respondent

And

W Crafter

3^rd Respondent

And

D Pty Ltd

4^th Respondent

And

P J Crafter

5^th Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

After a contested property dispute hearing involving a variety of third parties before Murphy J in which orders were made, an appeal was lodged, heard and dismissed. The wife now seeks costs arising out of the hearing before Murphy J.
The wife’s application was filed on 19 December 2012. At a mention before me in Adelaide on 24 May 2013, I set out a timetable for written submissions to be filed.
The wife having filed her material, the husband filed a responding submission on 1 July 2013. The third parties filed a submission on 28 June 2013 and the wife filed a responding submission on 4 July 2013.
The wife sought that the husband along with the third, fourth and fifth respondents pay her costs. She sought those costs on a indemnity basis.
The husband sought that no order for costs be made and that the wife’s application be simply dismissed.
The third parties concede that they should pay 50…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Crafter & Crafter and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] FamCA 624
Decision Date: 26 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Crafter & Crafter*, heard before Cronin J, the proceedings concerned a dispute between a husband and wife, and also involved third, fourth, and fifth respondents. The specific nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but the court was required to make orders regarding the costs of the proceedings.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of liability for the costs incurred in the proceedings, including a specific application relating to costs. The court was tasked with deciding how these costs should be allocated between the parties.

Cronin J ordered that the husband was to pay one-half of the wife's costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the application concerning costs. Similarly, the third, fourth, and fifth respondents were also ordered to pay one-half of the wife's costs. In both instances, the costs were to be determined by agreement between the parties, and failing such agreement, they were to be assessed on a party and party basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the husband pay one-half of the wife’s costs of the proceedings, including the application in relation to costs, by agreement and in default of agreement, as assessed on a party and party basis.

That the 3rd, 4th and 5th named respondents pay one-half of the wife’s costs of these proceedings, including the application in relation to costs, by agreement, and in default of agreement, as assessed on a party and party basis.

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.