Dunstan v Rickwood (No 2)

[2007] NSWCA 266

Reported Decision: (2007) DFC 95-407

New South Wales

Court of Appeal

CITATION:	Dunstan v Rickwood (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 266
HEARING DATE(S):	On the papers.
JUDGMENT DATE:	28 September 2007
JUDGMENT OF:	Beazley JA at 1; Ipp JA at 2; McColl JA at 3
DECISION:	The appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the trial from August 2004.
CATCHWORDS:	FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – De facto relationships – costs – costs of property adjustment proceedings under Property (Relationships) Act 1984 – whether “starting position” in cases under the Act that each party should pay its own costs – HELD – cannot confine discretion conferred by s 98, Civil Procedure Act 2005 and UCPR 42.1 by adopting “starting position” principle – costs should follow the event - PROCEDURE – costs – indemnity costs – offers made did not comply with offer of compromise rules, nor constitute a Calderbank letter – whether party acted so unreasonably as to warrant award of indemnity costs – HELD - no
LEGISLATION CITED:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Legal Profession Act 2004 Property (Relationships) Act 1984 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) District Court Rules 1973 Supreme Court Rules 1970 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
CASES CITED:	Bruinsma v Menczer (1995) 40 NSWLR 716 Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93 Dunstan v Rickwood [2007] NSWCA 147 Fordyce v Fordham & Anor (No 2) [2006] NSWCA 362 Ghunaim v Bart (No 2) [2006] NSWCA 82 Hyman v Rose [1912] AC 623 Jones v Bradley (No 2) [2003] NSWCA 258 Kardos v Sarbutt (No 2) [2006] NSWCA 206 Leichhardt Municipal Council v Green [2004] NSWCA 341 Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72 Rolls Royce Industrial Power (Pacific) Ltd (Formerly John Thompson (Australia) Pty Limited) v James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd (Pacific) Limited [2001] NSWCA 461; (2001) 53 NSWLR 626 Sydney City Council v Geftlick and Ors [2006] NSWCA 280 Von Zonneveld v Seaton [2005] NSWSC 175 Williamson v Mig Aero Pty Ltd (McLelland J, 15 March 1991, unreported)
PARTIES:	Ross Dunstan (Appellant) Julie Anne Rickwood (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40031 of 2007
COUNSEL:	G Brszstowski SC (Appellant) R Maurice (Respondent)
SOLICITORS:	Crowley Clifford Simpson (Canberra) (Appellant) Lessli Strong & Associates (Canberra) (Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	DC 942/2005
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	Goldring DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:	14 December 2006

CA 40031/07
DC 942/05

BEAZLEY JA
IPP JA
McCOLL JA

Friday 28 September 2007

Dunstan v Rickwood (No 2)

1 BEAZLEY JA: I agree with McColl JA

2 IPP JA: I agree with McColl JA

3 McCOLL JA: The parties were in a de facto relationship for nine years. The relationship ended in 2002. By proceedings commenced on 24 April 2003 the appellant sought a property adjustment pursuant to s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (the “Act”). He claimed an order that the respondent pay him $280,000 in consideration for which he would transfer…