Fazarri and Hsiao (No. 3)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FAZARRI & HSIAO (NO. 3) [2018] FamCA 867

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – where a property settlement application had been opposed until trial when the respondent sought an adjournment which was refused – where the matter proceeded on an undefended basis – where the applicant now seeks costs – where some costs should be awarded on the basis of wasted time.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules (2004) (Cth)
Federal Circuit Court Rules (2001) (Cth)

Fazarri & Hsaio [2018] FamCA 446
Fazarri & Hsaio (No. 2) [2018] FamCA 447
Limousin v Limousin (Costs) (2007) 38 Fam LR 478
Loomis & ML Lawyer (2016) FLC 93-731

APPLICANT: Mr Fazarri

RESPONDENT: Ms Hsiao

FILE NUMBER: MLC 11418 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 29 October 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: By way of written Submissions

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED FROM

THE APPLICANT: Taussig Cherrie Fildes

THE RESPONDENT: In Person

Orders

1. That the wife pay the husband’s costs fixed in the sum of $35,000 such sum to be offset against the amount owed by the husband to the wife and paid forthwith.

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 Fazarri & Hsiao (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 11418  of 2016

Mr Fazarri

Applicant

And

Ms Hsiao

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. By application contained in submissions filed 1 August 2018, Mr Fazarri (“the husband”) seeks an order for costs against Ms Hsiao (“the wife”). 

2. The application seeks costs of $309,108 which, if granted, would indemnify the husband against the costs that he has incurred with his legal practitioners. In the alternative, the husband seeks that costs be awarded on the scale under the Family Law Rules (2004) (Cth) (“the Family Law Rules”) and in the alternative again, a combination of the relevant scales provided by the Federal Circuit Court Rules (2001) (Cth) up until September 2017 and the Family Law Rules thereafter. In respect of the latter alternative, the basis lies in the fact that the proceedings were commenced in the Federal Circuit Court and continued there until September 2017 when they were transferred to this Court.

3. For her part, the wife opposes any order being made at all, and in her responding submission filed 14 August 2018, she submitted that a careful examination of the court file would show that there has already been one costs order made and it was inappropriate to make an order…