Damond and Padros - [2020] FamCA 803

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DAMOND & PADROS

[2020] FamCA 803

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where application for costs order relating to interlocutory application in the Federal Circuit Court before proceedings transferred to the Family Court of Australia – Where discussion of applicable principles – Where order for costs in the sum of $10,000.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 19.09

Browne & Green (2002) FLC 93–115
Collins & Collins (1985) FLC 91-603
Greedy & Greedy (1982) FLC 91-250
Hawkins & Roe [2012] FamCAFC 77; (2012) 47 Fam LR 526
Lenova & Lenova (Costs) [2011] FamCAFC 141
Luadaka & Luadaka (1998) FLC 92-830
Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311
Pennisi & Pennisi (1997) FLC 92-774
Robinson and Higginbotham (1991) FLC 92-209

APPLICANT:

Ms Damond

RESPONDENT:

Ms Padros

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mark Macdiarmid

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

706

2019

DATE DELIVERED:

23 September 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Foster J

HEARING DATE:

By way of written submissions last received on 21 August 2020

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Youssef of Taylor & Scott Lawyers

RESPONDENT – SELF-REPESENTED LITIGANT:

Ms Padros

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mark Macdiarmid Family Law Specialist

Orders

That the respondent Ms Padros pay the costs of the applicant Ms Damond of and incidental to the interim hearing on 2 April 2020 in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in the sum of $10,000 within one month.

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 Damond & Padros 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).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 706 of 2019

Ms Damond

Applicant

And

Ms Padros

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These are ongoing de facto property proceedings arising from the relationship between the applicant de facto wife Ms Damond (“the applicant”) and respondent de facto wife Ms Padros (“the respondent”).
On 22 July 2020 the applicant filed an Application in a Case seeking orders, in summary:
(1)That the respondent pay the applicant’s costs in the fixed sum of $20,000; and
(2)That should the respondent fail, refuse or neglect to comply with this order for costs or a previous order made that provided that the respondent “provide the Applicant copies of her B Pty Ltd’s books evidencing her trailing commission and other such income related documents for the period 1 July 2016 to present”, then the respondent “shall be precluded from further participating in these proceedings and the court shall proceed to make orders…

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.

Continue reading Damond and Padros

Details

AGLC: Damond and Padros [2020] FamCA 803
Case: [2020] FamCA 803
Decision Date: 23 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by Ms Damond (the applicant) against Ms Padros (the respondent) in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The dispute appears to have arisen in the context of proceedings before the Court, with the specific issue before Justice Foster relating to costs incurred by the applicant in relation to an interim hearing conducted on 2 April 2020.

The central legal issue before the Court was the determination of an appropriate costs order following the interim hearing. Specifically, the Court was required to decide whether the respondent should be ordered to pay a portion of the applicant's costs and, if so, in what amount.

Justice Foster ordered that the respondent, Ms Padros, pay the costs of the applicant, Ms Damond, in relation to the interim hearing on 2 April 2020. The sum ordered was $10,000, with payment to be made within one month of the order being entered into the Court's records.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the respondent Ms Padros pay the costs of the applicant Ms Damond of and incidental to the interim hearing on 2 April 2020 in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in the sum of $10,000 within one month.

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.