Farro and Goff & Ors - [2020] FamCA 300

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FARRO & GOFF AND ORS

[2020] FamCA 300

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where application for costs made by the former fifth and sixth respondents who, on their application, have now been removed as parties to the proceedings – Consideration of applicable principles – Where order for costs on a party/party basis.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 19.03, 19.08(3), 19.18(1)

Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 135 ALR 160
Colgate Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225
Collins & Collins (1985) FLC 91-603
Farro & Goff and Ors [2019] FamCA 959
Greedy & Greedy (1982) FLC 91-250
Harris & Dewell and Anor (No.2) [2018] FamCAFC 180
Hawkins & Roe [2012] FamCAFC 77
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2007] NSWSC 23
Luadaka & Luadaka (1998) FLC 92-830
Munday v Bowman (1997) FLC 92-784
Parke & the Estate of the Late A Parke (2016) FLC 93-748
Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311

APPLICANT:

Ms Farro

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Ms Goff

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Mr Cabler as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Ms Goff

THIRD RESPONDENT:

B Pty Ltd (ABN …)

FOURTH RESPONDENT:

Mr C trading as 'C Firm'

FIFTH RESPONDENT:

Mr D

SIXTH RESPONDENT:

E Pty Ltd trading as 'F Business' (ABN …)

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

4297

2013

DATE DELIVERED:

30 April 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Foster J

HEARING DATE:

By way of written submissions last received on 30 March 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Coleman SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Malcolm McDonald & Co

SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST

RESPONDENT:

No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND

RESPONDENT:

No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE THIRD

RESPONDENT:

No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE FOURTH

RESPONDENT:

Mullane & Lindsay Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE FIFTH

RESPONDENT:

Ms Eldershaw

SOLICITOR FOR THE FIFTH

RESPONDENT:

Colin Biggers & Paisley

COUNSEL FOR THE SIXTH RESPONDENT:

Ms Eldershaw

SOLICITOR FOR THE SIXTH

RESPONDENT:

Colin Biggers & Paisley

Orders

That the applicant pay the fifth and sixth respondents’ costs of and incidental to these proceedings on a party/party basis as agreed within one month of this order or otherwise as assessed with such costs to be paid within one month of that assessment.

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 Farro & Goff 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 PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 4297 of 2013

Ms Farro

Applicant

And

Ms Goff

First Respondent

And

Mr…

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 Farro and Goff & Ors

Details

AGLC: Farro and Goff & Ors [2020] FamCA 300
Case: [2020] FamCA 300
Decision Date: 30 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Farro, sought to join the fifth and sixth respondents, Goff & Ors, to proceedings. The nature of the underlying dispute and the specific relief sought by Farro against Goff & Ors were not detailed in the provided text. The application was heard by Foster J.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether Goff & Ors should be joined as parties to the existing proceedings. This would involve determining if the joinder was necessary or desirable for the just and convenient determination of the dispute between the existing parties, or if Goff & Ors had a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation.

Foster J ordered that the applicant, Farro, pay the costs of the fifth and sixth respondents, Goff & Ors, on a party/party basis. These costs are to be agreed within one month or assessed, with payment due within one month of assessment. This outcome suggests that the application to join Goff & Ors was either unsuccessful or that the Court determined costs should lie with the applicant for other reasons related to the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the applicant pay the fifth and sixth respondents’ costs of and incidental to these proceedings on a party/party basis as agreed within one month of this order or otherwise as assessed with such costs to be paid within one month of that assessment.

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.