Deep and Deep

[2010] FamCA 802

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DEEP & DEEP [2010] FamCA 802

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – No order made pursuant to Section 117(2) – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer was not sought by the parties – Order made for consent orders

APPLICANT: Ms Deep

RESPONDENT: Mr Deep

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Brunswick, Solicitor

FILE NUMBER: BRC 836 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 31 August 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Barry J

HEARING DATE: 31 August 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Durham, Solicitor appearing by telephone for the Applicant Mother

SOLICITORS FOR THE APPLICANT: Quinn & Scattini

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: The Respondent Father appearing in person by telephone

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mrs Brunswick, Solicitor of Family Law Solutions appearing by telephone as the Independent Children’s Lawyer

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Property Proceedings

1. The property proceedings be listed for trial at 10.00 am on 9 February 2011 at the Brisbane Registry of the Family Court.

2. The property proceedings be adjourned for trial directions at 9.30 am on
   2 December 2010 at the Brisbane Registry of the Family Court with the parties given leave to appear by telephone.

3. The property proceedings be adjourned for trial directions compliance check at 9.30 am on 25 January 2011 with the parties given leave to appear by telephone.

Children’s Proceedings

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

1. The Independent Children’s Lawyer’s oral application for costs against the Mother and the Father is dismissed.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 836 of 2008

MS DEEP

Applicant

And

MR DEEP

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I’m not inclined to make an order for costs pursuant to section 117(2) primarily on the basis that the father is unemployed.  The mother is earning a modest income of about $40,000 a year.  Each party has the support of a dependent child.  The assets the parties have are modest indeed. 

2. Whilst I’m mindful of the Legal Aid budget and the taxpayers’ funds used to support the Legal Aid budget it is an important factor that neither party actually sought the appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer in this matter.  The court moved of its own motion, and on recommendations as I recall, for such an appointment.

3. In the circumstances I will not make an order for costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.  I will make the order for consent orders.  I would request that consent orders be signed and dealt with expeditiously by the parties.

4. 9 February 2011 is the hearing for the property settlement.  I’ll be bringing it on before then.  I won’t give you a date now but I’ll be listing it before then for directions hearings and then a compliance check. 

5. I can deal with the compliance check by phone.  I really hope it won’t be necessary to litigate that, that commonsense could be brought to bear.

6. Mr Durham, if your client says that there was the taking of money and the sale of a vehicle - which the husband benefited solely from that - she should be able to provide details of the vehicle and the evidence from bank accounts and such like. 

7. That concludes the hearing on today’s date.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Barry delivered on 31 August 2010.

Associate: 

Date:  31 August 2010