Easom and Burhan (No. 2) - [2020] FamCA 14

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EASOM & BURHAN (NO. 2)

[2020] FamCA 14

FAMILY LAW – INDEMNITY COSTS – unsuccessful applicant on a stay application pressed to pay wife’s costs of resisting stay application, such costs to be on an indemnity basis to be taxed in default of agreement – relevant principles examined – indemnity costs ordered.

Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225
Goodridge & Beadle (No 2) [2019] FamCA 786
Horne (in his capacity as trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Narain) v Narain [2017] FCCA 1190
Medlon & Medlon (No. 6) (2015) 54 Fam LR 1

APPLICANT:

Ms Easom

RESPONDENT:

Mr Burhan

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Ms Burhan

THIRD RESPONDENT:

C Pty Ltd

FOURTH RESPONDENT:

C Family Trust

FIFTH RESPONDENT:

C2 Pty Ltd

SIXTH RESPONDENT:

C2 Unit Trust

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

11409

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

15 January 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

The Honourable Justice Wilson

HEARING DATE:

15 January 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr D Brown of One of Her Majesty's Counsel

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

DSA Law

COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT:

Ms R Stoikovska of Senior Counsel

SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT:

Lander & Rogers

COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT:

Ms C Devine

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT:

Pigdon Norgate Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE THIRD RESPONDENT:

Ms C Devine

SOLICITOR FOR THE THIRD RESPONDENT:

Pigdon Norgate Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE FOURTH RESPONDENT:

Ms C Devine

SOLICITOR FOR THE FOURTH RESPONDENT:

Pigdon Norgate Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE FIFTH RESPONDENT:

Ms C Devine

SOLICITOR FOR THE FIFTH RESPONDENT:

Pigdon Norgate Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE SIXTH RESPONDENT:

Ms C Devine

SOLICITOR FOR THE SIXTH RESPONDENT:

Pigdon Norgate Family Lawyers

Orders

The wife’s costs of and incidental to the husband’s application for a stay of my orders of 25 November 2019, including the costs of today are to be taxed on an indemnity basis in default of agreement.

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 Easom & Burhan 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 11409 of 2018

Ms Easom

Applicant

And

Mr Burhan

First Respondent

And

Ms Burhan

Second Respondent

And

C Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

And

C Family Trust

Fourth Respondent

And

C2 Pty Ltd

Fifth Respondent

And

C2 Unit Trust

Sixth Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Consequent upon my decision dismissing the application in a case dated 8 January 2020, the wife has sought an order that by reason of the…

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 Easom and Burhan (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Easom and Burhan (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 14
Case: [2020] FamCA 14
Decision Date: 15 January 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of *Easom and Burhan (No. 2)* concerned an application by the husband for a stay of orders previously made by Justice Wilson on 25 November 2019. The specific nature of the dispute leading to the original orders is not detailed in the provided text, but the husband's application sought to suspend the operation of those orders.

The central legal issue before Justice Wilson was whether the husband had established sufficient grounds to warrant a stay of the existing orders. This required the court to consider the principles governing the grant of a stay, particularly in the context of family law proceedings, and to assess whether the husband's application met the necessary threshold for such relief.

Justice Wilson ultimately ordered that the wife's costs associated with the husband's application for a stay, including the costs of the hearing on the day the decision was made, were to be taxed on an indemnity basis. This indicates that the court found the husband's application to be without merit or to have been brought vexatiously or unreasonably, leading to a punitive costs order in favour of the wife. The final orders were subject to formal entry in the Court's records.

Orders

Orders of the court

The wife’s costs of and incidental to the husband’s application for a stay of my orders of 25 November 2019, including the costs of today are to be taxed on an indemnity basis in default of agreement.

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.