Ettridge and Somers (No. 3)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ETTRIDGE & SOMERS (NO. 3) [2018] FamCA 943

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – where the respondent opposed an order for indemnity costs as sought by the applicant – when the applicant relied upon a Calderbank offer, but that was prior to s 90RD declaration – costs ordered on a scale basis.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

Colgate-Palmolive Company & Anor v. Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 801; 46 FCR 225
Ettridge & Somers [2017] FamCA 1173
Ettridge & Somers (No. 2) [2018] FamCA 863
Harris & Dewell and Anor (No. 2) [2018] FamCAFC 180
Munday v Bowman (1997) FLC 92-784
Somers & Ettridge [2018] FamCA 874
Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns [2000] FamCA 681,
(2000) FLC 93-029

APPLICANT: Ms Ettridge

RESPONDENT: Mr Somers

FILE NUMBER: MLC 11262 of 2015

DATE DELIVERED: 20 November 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: By way of written submissions

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED FROM

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Carew Counsel

THE RESPONDENT: In Person

Orders

1. That the respondent pay 60 per cent of the applicant’s costs according to the scale under the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) for the period from the day after the hearing on 7 June 2018 (but excluding the hearing and the incidental costs associated with the hearing on 7 September 2018) by agreement with the respondent and failing agreement, as assessed.

2. That the application by the applicant contained in the submission filed 9 November 2018 and the respondent’s response filed by submission on 16 November 2018 are otherwise dismissed. 

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 Ettridge & Somers (No. 3) 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 11262 of 2015

Ms Ettridge

Applicant

And

Mr Somers

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 29 October 2018, I made final property orders between Ms Ettridge (“the applicant”) and Mr Somers (“the respondent”)[1].

   [1] Published as Ettridge & Somers (No. 2) [2018] FamCA 863

2. Claims and counterclaims against each other have been significant in this case since its commencement in 2015. Costs have been controversial from the beginning.  It would be reasonable to say that the applicant’s position has been that the respondent has been unreasonable throughout the litigation forcing her to ultimately go to trial.  Similarly, the respondent would argue that the applicant has refused all forms of negotiation and mediation and as a person without legal representation, he wanted…