D and D (Costs)

[2010] FamCAFC 63

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

D & D (COSTS) [2010] FamCAFC 63

FAMILY LAW – COSTS OF APPEAL – Husband’s appeal against order for costs of trial where husband’s appeal against substantive orders of trial judge upon which order for costs was based had previously been wholly unsuccessful – Husband’s appeal against order for costs of trial dismissed – Husband’s appeal against part of trial judge’s order which provided that husband pay all reserved costs allowed and orders for payment of reserved costs discharged – Wife at liberty to re-apply with respect to such reserved costs – Trial judge’s order for costs included costs previously reserved before other judicial officers and former judicial officers – Court persuaded that trial judge erred in awarding costs previously reserved by other judicial officers in the absence of sufficient knowledge or information with respect to what occurred on each of the occasions upon which costs were reserved by other judicial officers.

Family Law Act 1975  s 117(2A)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

De Winter v De Winter (1979) FLC ¶90‑605

APPELLANT: MR D

RESPONDENT: MS D

RECEIVER MR X

TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY: MR Y & MR Z

FILE NUMBER: BRF 1325 of 2002

APPEAL NUMBER: NA 98 of 2005

DATE DELIVERED: 25 March 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Finn, Coleman & May JJ

HEARING DATE: Written submissions

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 8 December 2005

LOWER COURT MNC: [2005] FamCA 1191

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: C.J. O’Neill

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: Stacks Gray

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Cameron

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Orders

1. That the appeal be allowed in part.

2. That Order 1 of the orders of 8 December 2005 be amended by deleting from such order the words “including all reserved costs”.

   It is noted in connection with Order 2 that notwithstanding the amendment to Order 1 of the orders of 8 December 2005, the wife remains at liberty to re-apply in relation to the reserved costs.

3. That the Court grants to the Appellant Husband a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the Appellant Husband in respect of the costs incurred by the Appellant Husband in relation to the appeal.

4. That the Court grants to the Respondent Wife a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the Respondent Wife in respect of the costs incurred by the Respondent Wife in relation to the appeal.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym D & D (Costs) is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

THE…