DAVENPORT & DAVENPORT

[2020] FCCA 2765

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DAVENPORT & DAVENPORT [2020] FCCA 2765

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Costs – whether justifying circumstances to make costs order – order for costs.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.79, 117(1), 117(2A), 117(2A)(c), 117(2A)(e)

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), ss.66, 67, 68, 69

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.21.10, 21.02(2), 21.04, 20.01(1)(b)

Cases cited:

Bant & Clayton (Costs) [2016] FamCAFC 35

Colgate-Palmolive v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 118 ALR 248

Parke & Estate of the Late A Parke (2016) FLC 93-748

Penfold & Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311

Prantage v Prantage [2014] FamCA 850

Stephens & Stephens (2010) FamCAFC 117

Applicant: MS DAVENPORT

Respondent: MR DAVENPORT

File Number: BRC 787 of 2020

Judgment of: Judge Tonkin

Hearing date: 21 August 2020

Date of Last Submission: 4 September 2020

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 8 October 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms R. Horsley

Solicitors for the Applicant: Michael Lynch Family Lawyers

The Respondent appeared in person.

ORDERS

1. Within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of these Orders, the husband pay the wife’s costs associated with his application for review filed on 20 April 2020 calculated in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) fixed in the sum of $6,806.50.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRC 787 of 2020

MS DAVENPORT

Applicant

And

MR DAVENPORT

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The wife brings an application for costs with respect to the husband’s application for review of the decision of the Registrar filed on 20 April 2020. That application was dismissed on 21 August 2020.

Background

1. The parties commenced cohabitation in 2015, were married in 2017 and separated under one roof on 5 April 2019. There are no children of the marriage. The duration of the relationship was approximately 3 years and 8 months. On 8 May 2020 the husband vacated the former matrimonial home at B Street, Suburb C.

2. On 22 January 2020 the wife commenced proceedings seeking interim and final orders with respect to adjustment of property interests under section 79 of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth).

3. On 10 March 2020 the husband filed a response seeking inter alia that “final orders application by the applicant be rejected as the applicant has not undertaken any genuine effort at mediation.”

4. Further, he sought interim orders as follows:

   “1.    Interim orders application by the applicant be rejected as the applicant has not undertaken any genuine effort at mediation;

   2.  The parties be directed to participate in a genuine effort at mediation of the financial dispute;

   3.  The parties agree to the appointment of a private mediator from a list of potential mediator names and the costs of the mediation be shared equally by both parties;

   4.  Interim orders be granted for the respondent to have shared…