Danton & Lancaster (No 3) - [2025] FedCFamC2F 517

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Danton & Lancaster (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC2F 517

File number(s): DGC 1527 of 2016

Judgment of: JUDGE JENKINS

Date of judgment: 28 April 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – COSTS – father seeks cost of multiple sets of proceedings – mother’s conduct in ceasing time – non-compliance with orders – mother not wholly unsuccessful – inability to meet costs order not a reason in itself not to award costs – limited costs awarded on scale.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 102NA, 117

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Sch 1 Items 1, 13, 14

Cases cited:
Anison & Anison [2019] FamCAFC 108

Danton & Lancaster [2024] FedCFamC2F 1045

Danton & Lancaster (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 1464

Lancaster & Danton [2024] FedCFamC1A 232

Lenova & Lenova (Costs) [2011] FamCAFC 141

Nada & Nettle (Costs) [2014] FamCAFC 207

Neibert & Featherstone [2025] FedCFamC1A 45

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 68

Date of last submission/s: 31 March 2025

Date of hearing: Determined in Chambers on the papers

Place: Dandenong

Solicitor for the Applicant: SLF Lawyers

Solicitor for the Respondent: In Person
ORDERS

DGC 1527 of 2016

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR DANTON

Applicant

AND:
MS LANCASTER

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE JENKINS

DATE OF ORDER:

28 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The respondent mother pay the applicant father’s costs of $8,500.00 within 90 days.
2.The applicant father’s cost application filed 2 September 2024 be otherwise dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE JENKINS:

This matter concerns an application for costs brought by Mr Danton (“the father”) following the making of final parenting orders on 6 August 2024 (“the substantive proceeding.”) In that proceeding, the father was successful in achieving orders for a change of residence for the child X born in 2011 (“X”).
The father seeks the costs of the substantive proceeding as well as costs of:
(1)the contravention application filed by the father on 31 March 2022 (“the contravention application”);
(2)the recovery order proceedings on 8 August 2024 (“the first recovery order proceeding”);
(3)the recovery order…

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 Danton & Lancaster (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Danton & Lancaster (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC2F 517
Case: [2025] FedCFamC2F 517
Decision Date: 28 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia involved a dispute between Mr Danton, the applicant father, and Ms Lancaster, the respondent mother, regarding costs. Mr Danton sought to recover multiple sets of legal costs incurred in various proceedings against Ms Lancaster. These costs arose due to Ms Lancaster's conduct, which included ceasing time and non-compliance with court orders. Despite the father's efforts to recover these costs, the mother was not entirely unsuccessful in her legal defences, which complicated the issue of costs.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the mother's partial success in the proceedings should bar the father from recovering any costs, and if so, to what extent. The court had to balance the father's significant financial burden due to the mother's conduct against the principle that costs should not be awarded to a party who has not been wholly unsuccessful. The court also considered the mother's inability to meet any costs order as a factor, although it did not deem this a sufficient reason to deny costs altogether.

Judge Jenkins determined that while the mother had not been wholly unsuccessful, her conduct warranted some costs to be awarded to the father. The court awarded a limited amount of costs, specifically $8,500, on a scale that reflected the partial success of the mother. The father's broader application for costs was dismissed, and the court ordered the mother to pay the specified amount within 90 days. This decision balanced the need to address the father's financial burden with the mother's partial success in the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

DGC 1527 of 2016

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MR DANTON

Applicant

AND:

MS LANCASTER

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE JENKINS

DATE OF ORDER:

28 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondent mother pay the applicant father’s costs of $8,500.00 within 90 days.

2. The applicant father’s cost application filed 2 September 2024 be otherwise dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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.

File number(s):	DGC 1527 of 2016
Judgment of:	JUDGE JENKINS
Date of judgment:	28 April 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – COSTS – father seeks cost of multiple sets of proceedings – mother’s conduct in ceasing time – non-compliance with orders – mother not wholly unsuccessful – inability to meet costs order not a reason in itself not to award costs – limited costs awarded on scale.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 102NA, 117 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Sch 1 Items 1, 13, 14
Cases cited:	Anison & Anison [2019] FamCAFC 108 Danton & Lancaster [2024] FedCFamC2F 1045 Danton & Lancaster (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 1464 Lancaster & Danton [2024] FedCFamC1A 232 Lenova & Lenova (Costs) [2011] FamCAFC 141 Nada & Nettle (Costs) [2014] FamCAFC 207 Neibert & Featherstone [2025] FedCFamC1A 45
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	68
Date of last submission/s:	31 March 2025
Date of hearing:	Determined in Chambers on the papers
Place:	Dandenong
Solicitor for the Applicant:	SLF Lawyers
Solicitor for the Respondent:	In Person

DGC 1527 of 2016
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MR DANTON Applicant
AND:	MS LANCASTER Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE JENKINS
DATE OF ORDER:	28 APRIL 2025