Felton and Penman - [2017] FCCA 26

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FELTON & PENMAN

[2017] FCCA 26

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Costs following parenting proceedings.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, s.117

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, rr.21.02, 21.03

Cases cited:

Browne v Green [2002] FamCA 791; (2002) FLC 93-115
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 536; (1993) 118 ALR 248
Cross v Beaumont [2008] FamCAFC 68; (2008) 39 Fam LR 389
Edgar v Halle (No.2) [2010] FamCA 260
Fitzgerald (as child representative for A (Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania) v Fish and Another [2005] FamCA 158; (2005) 33 Fam LR 123
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty. Ltd. v. International Produce Merchants Pty. Ltd. [1988] FCA 202; [1988] 81 ALR 397
Harris and Harris (1991) FLC 92-254

Hawkins & Roe [2012] FamCAFC 77

I and I (No.2) (1995) FLC 92-625
In the marriage of Greedy (1982) FLC 91-250
Mallet v Mallet [1984] HCA 21; (1984) 156 CLR 605
Marinko v Marinko (1983) FLC 91-307
Medlon & Medlon (No.6) (Indemnity Costs) [2015] FamCAFC 157
Munday v Bowman (1997) FLC 92-784
Penfold and Penfold [1980] HCA 4; (1980) 144 CLR 311
Pennisiv Pennisi (1997) FLC 92-774
Ragatta Developments Pty. Ltd. v Westpac Banking Corporation (unreported Federal Court, 5 March 1993
Robinson v Higginbotham [1991] FamCA 4; (1991) FLC 92-209
Tetijo Holdings Pty. Ltd. v Keeprite Australia Pty. Ltd (unreported, Federal Court, 3 May 1991
Yunghanns v Yunghanns[2000] FamCA 681; (2000) FLC 93-029

Applicant:

MS FELTON

Respondent:

MR PENMAN

File Number:

WOC 525 of 2014

Judgment of:

Judge Altobelli

Hearing date:

In Chambers

Date of Last Submission:

7 December 2016

Delivered at:

Wollongong

Delivered on:

7 February 2017

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Helen Volk Lawyers

The Respondent is self-represented.

ORDERS

Within 6 months of the date of these Orders, the Respondent Father pay the Applicant Mother’s costs in the amount of $50,000.00.
All outstanding applications otherwise be dismissed and the matter removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Felton & Penman is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT WOLLONGONG

WOC 525 of 2014

MS FELTON

Applicant

And

MR PENMAN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

These reasons for judgment explain the Orders made by the Court in the costs application which followed the reasons for judgment delivered on 14 September 2016 in this matter reported as 2016 [FCCA] 1816.

Background

On 14 September 2016, I delivered reasons for judgment in the substantive dispute between the parents which related to their daughter, X, born (omitted) 2011. Final parenting Orders were made on that day. The Court also made two further Orders relating to costs, orders 10 and 11, in the following terms:
10.Any application for costs is to proceed by way of written submissions not exceeding 500 words, such application to be filed and served within 28 days, together with a…

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 Felton and Penman

Details

AGLC: Felton and Penman [2017] FCCA 26
Case: [2017] FCCA 26
Decision Date: 7 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Felton and Penman*, heard before Judge Altobelli, the dispute concerned applications made by both the Applicant Mother and the Respondent Father. The specific nature of these applications is not detailed, but the court's final orders indicate they were applications awaiting finalisation.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of costs payable by one party to the other. The court was required to decide the quantum of costs to be awarded and to make final orders regarding the outstanding applications.

Judge Altobelli ordered that the Respondent Father pay the Applicant Mother's costs in the sum of $50,000.00 within six months of the date of the orders. Furthermore, all other outstanding applications were dismissed, and the matter was removed from the court's list of cases awaiting finalisation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Within 6 months of the date of these Orders, the Respondent Father pay the Applicant Mother’s costs in the amount of $50,000.00.

All outstanding applications otherwise be dismissed and the matter removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.

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.