Filipovic & Filipovic (No 4)
[2024] FedCFamC2F 439
•11 April 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Filipovic & Filipovic (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC2F 439
File number(s): MLC 13771 of 2021 Judgment of: JUDGE O'SHANNESSY Date of judgment: 11 April 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - costs application – where the wife seeks party/party costs to be paid – where each party filed written submissions as to the issue of costs – certify for counsel and senior counsel pursuant to rule 12.28 – costs based on Schedule 3 of the rules – because work based rather than court event based costs in this case – interim property application partly successful – application for disclosure was necessary – costs orders made Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 117(1), 117(2)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 rule 1.33(1), rule 1.33(2)(d) and rule 12.28.
Cases cited: Filipovic & Filipovic (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 825
Filipovic & Filipovic (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 249
Marcos & Serina (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 373
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 50 Date of last submission/s: 13 March 2024 Date of hearing: 19 February 2024 Place: Melbourne Counsel for the Applicant: Mr North SC Solicitor for the Applicant: Mills Oakley Lawyers Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms Matson Solicitor for the First Respondent: Kenna Teasdale Lawyers Counsel for the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents: Mr Gates Solicitor for the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents: KHQ Lawyers ORDERS
MLC 13771 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MS FILIPOVIC
Applicant
AND: MR FILIPOVIC
First Respondent
MR B FILIPOVIC
Second Respondent
G PTY LTD (and another named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE O'SHANNESSY
DATE OF ORDER:
27 FEBRUARY 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Mr Filipovic pay one half of the Wife’s party/party costs of and incidental to her application in a case served 13 November 2023 including her application for the costs of that application, as agreed or assessed on Schedule 3 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021.
2.Mr B Filipovic, C Pty Ltd and D Pty Ltd pay one half of the Wife’s party/party costs of and incidental to her application in a case served 13 November 2023 including her application for the costs of that application, as agreed or assessed on Schedule 3 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021.
3.Pursuant to Rule 12.28 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021, it is certified it was appropriate to retain counsel and senior counsel.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR RESERVED JUDGMENT
AN APPLICATION FOR COSTS
These reasons determine the application for costs by Ms Filipovic (‘the Wife’) against, Mr Filipovic (‘the Husband’), Mr B Filipovic (‘the Brother’), C Pty Ltd and D Pty Ltd (‘the Companies’)[1] regarding the Wife’s application in a case served on 13 November 2023 and heard on 19 February 2024 with orders made and reserved reasons delivered on 27 February 2024. The Wife’s submissions as to costs were commenced on 19 February 2024 but were not completed or responded to because of the question of whether offers in writing had been made, and if so, what those offers were. It was common ground that offers in writing should not be explored before the pending decision was made.
[1] The Husband, the Brother and the Companies are collectively referred to herein as the ‘2nd to 4th respondents’.
In that circumstance the following Order was made on 27 February 2024 at [8]:
8.The parties are at liberty to file and serve a further short written submission, not exceeding 5 pages, as to costs of the Wife’s application in a proceeding served 13 November 2023, and in the event of there having been a relevant offer in writing, a copy of that offer, in accordance with the following timetable:
(a) The Wife to file and serve no later than 7 days after these orders; and
(b) The Husband, the Brother and the Companies file and serve no later than 14 days after these orders.
(referred to hereafter as order [8])
Pursuant to that order [8] further written submissions were filed by the Wife on 5 March 2024, and responses by the Husband on 12 March 2024, and responses response by the Brother and the Companies on 13 March 2024.
Section 117 of the Act
The provisions of section 117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Act’) control this application for costs and I apply those provisions. They are well known and it is unnecessary to recite them. I take them into account.
BACKGROUND
It is unnecessary to recite the circumstances and controversies of the substantive proceedings in this matter as is it outlined in Filipovic & Filipovic (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 825 (July 2023 reasons) and Filipovic & Filipovic (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 249 (February 2024 reasons) and provide background and context to the determination. However it is useful to repeat the following parts of those reasons.
The July 2023 reasons
It is convenient that I recite passages from the July 2023 reasons.
25On 11 May 2022 the Husband filed an affidavit offering an explanation for the disposal of those shareholdings. This was to the effect that whether or not recorded in company records (and the detail of that affidavit was repeated in the Husband’s affidavit filed 25 August 2022 (‘the Husband’s affidavit’)), he said the situation was that:
•Since 2006, the Husband and the Brother had conducted the “business” [Y] Pty Ltd and “[the Brother] and I considered [Y] Pty Ltd to be a joint business for both our benefit and we operated and worked in it together.” ;
•As a result of the failed investments [Y] Pty Ltd had made “it was understood that [the Brother] and [the Husband] that I would reimburse him such funds and drawings that were lost through such investments. We did not document this agreement in a formal written document as this was not how we had conducted our business affairs at any stage”;
•It was agreed at all times that the Brother had a beneficial interest in the business and that it was run jointly and to benefit both brothers;
•That [D Pty Ltd] and [C Pty Ltd] were established and operated by the Brother and the Husband during the course of their business relationship;
•That the parents of the Husband and the Brother had lent the Husband a substantial sum to invest in [D Pty Ltd] back in 2008 and another substantial sum in 2017 to invest in [C Pty Ltd]; and
•In [early] 2021 the Husband was concerned he could not repay his borrowings from his parents or compensate the Brother for the money lost in the failed investments (who had to live with his parents due to the lost investments) and that his parents sought repayment of the borrowed funds.
26As a consequence of all this the Husband said he agreed to, and then did, transfer all his interest in [D Pty Ltd] and [C Pty Ltd] to the Brother and the Brother transferred all his interest in [Y Pty Ltd] to the Husband. He did not inform the Wife, although he said she knew of his difficult financial circumstances. The Wife alleges these transfers happened at a time of significant matrimonial disharmony shortly before separation and were intended to defeat her anticipated property settlement.
(emphasis added)
The February 2024 reasons
It is convenient that I recite passages from the February 2024 reasons.
45I am satisfied that the Husband, the Brother and the Companies are in default of compliance with the filing orders of 11 October 2023. It was not contended that they weren’t. This is not a case where an adjournment with costs, to remedy the prejudice to the not defaulting, or at least not significantly defaulting, party was pressed by those in default.
…
50I am satisfied that the very late filing did prejudice the Wife, at least to some degree. Disputes as to disclosure are tedious and time consuming. Time is required to properly deal with them. Electronic filing on the Thursday or Friday before a hearing on the Monday, fixed some three months previously, does not permit not only the lawyers but the lay party to come to grips with the substance and the detail of responding material.
51The Judicial Registrar had good reason to set out the filing regime he did. The late filing set that scheme at naught.
52The late filing seriously inconvenienced the court and the applicant party. The lay party has to provide instructions in a rush. That prejudices her.
53Balancing all of the evidence, including the lack of deposed reasons for late filing, the very late filing (as opposed to late but still a month or couple of weeks before the hearing), the overarching purpose of the legislation and the Rules and the fact that these were court orders (not advisory suggestions), I was and am, not satisfied I should vary the interim hearing orders to permit reliance on the very late filed and served material.
Wife’s submissions
I regard the Wife’s four and a third page submissions that annexed seven letters, all pre issue, as within the limitations of order [8]. Order [8] contemplated up to 5 pages of submissions plus such written offers, or what was said to be offers, in writing and a copy of any relevant offer in writing. Save for the allegation that the total document exceeded 5 pages, there was no objection, on relevance or other grounds, to the annexed or “copy” letters being before me.
The Wife sought to rely on the provisions of s 117(2) of the Family Law Act (‘the Act’) to justify an order for costs as follows:[2]
(i) the conduct of each of the respondents in relation to the proceedings including in relation to discovery and production of documents (s 117(2A)(c));
(ii) the proceedings were necessitated by the failure of each of the respondents to comply with orders including order 3 of the orders of 16 August 2023 and the order of 11 October 2023 (s 117(2A)(d));
(iii) offers in writing (s 117(2A)(f));
(iv) other matters the court considers relevant (s 112(2A)(g).
[2] Wife’s written submissions filed 5 March 2024, 1.
The Wife also relied upon order 1.33(2)(d) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 as a basis for the order as to costs. And I recite that provision:
Rule 1.33 Failure to comply with a legislative provision or order
…
(2)If a party to a proceeding does not comply with these Rules, the Family Law Regulations or a procedural order, the court may do any of the following:
…
(d) order costs;
…
Note:This subrule does not limit the powers of the court. It is an expectation that a non-defaulting party will minimise any loss.
The Wife relied on seven (7) different letters/emails between the months of October and November 2023. I regard those letters as tendered in evidence.
It was submitted those letters/emails demonstrate that the Wife sought to avoid the bringing of the application but was forced to do so by the conduct of the respondents in failing to meet their obligations of disclosure and production of documents.
The letter of 2 October 2023 includes:
"We remind you also that the only basis upon which our client was prepared to agree to '"desktop" valuations, was that all existing or recently expired leases associated with the commercial properties were provided to [Mr EE] from [DD] Pty Ltd. It is of significant concern that notwithstanding that concession made by our client, it is now being represented that leases may not be made available to the valuer. This is wholly unacceptable, and in the event that your client, being a director and shareholder of companies that own those properties, now asserts that he is not able to produce leases associated with those commercial properties, our client will have no choice other than to apply to the Court seeking an Order for the production of those leases. In the event that such an Application becomes necessary, this letter will be tendered to the Court on the a question of costs. (emphasis added)
Save that I don’t accept the use of the words “was forced” and instead regard the words, “needed to” as more appropriate, I accept that submission.
It was said those letters/emails demonstrate that the persistent attempt of the 2nd to 4th respondents to impose unjustified pre conditions for their disclosure of documents. The letters show that after strident, but not discourteous demands for disclosure of documents, the solicitors for the Brother and the Companies refused to provide requested documents, “as we do not consider our client is necessarily obliged to comply with the numerous requests…until your client makes their case against our client. We consider the Court is likely to order pleadings…To be clear we do not propose to seek instructions to your letter sent today until we have a response to our letter”.
The Judicial Registrar then ordered applications to be filed, and I infer, to bring the festering dispute to a conclusion. Then request for documents was repeated and the usual warning as to costs was made if an application was necessary. The response was obfuscatory and sought to impose pre conditions. See also the position of the Brother recited as at [13] of the February 2024 reasons,
I accept the submission that the Brother and the Companies sought to impose unjustified preconditions on their disclosure obligations.
That the Judicial Registrar subsequently ordered a statement of claim be provided does not justify the position taken by the Brother and the Companies in the application before me.
Further, it was also submitted that the Wife was substantially successful in her claim for a partial property settlement against the Husband and that had been entirely resisted by him. I accept that submission.
Husband’s submissions: The extant ruling: documents could not be relied upon
The submissions of the Husband, the Brother and the Companies sought to rely on the very same documents that had been filed long after the applicable orders for filing and said that should and in regard to which I had refused the implicit or inferred application to vary the date for compliance, in substance the effect of my ruling was that that I had ruled the late documents could not be relied upon:[3]
[3] Husband’s written submissions filed 12 March 2024, 2.
4.On 15 February 2024, the Husband filed his Response to the Application and an affidavit answering the wife’s questions1 which, it is submitted, sought information already known to her.
…
6. The Husband was not in breach of any orders concerning the disclosure/discovery at the time the Wife’s application was filed, nor at the time of the hearing of the Application. Any assertion … that the Husband was in breach of orders relating to Disclosure/Discovery at the time of filing her Application or at the hearing is misleading and denied. We refer to paragraph 23 and 24 of the Husband’s affidavit filed 15 February 2024 which demonstrates the significant and complete production of documents made by the Husband in answer to the Wife’s request for documents made pursuant to order 3 of the orders dated 16 August 2023.
7.It is also submitted that the Wife makes her Application seeking discovery from the Husband in circumstances where she has failed, and continues with that failure (to date) to make proper discovery in relation to trusts of which she is a beneficiary. We refer to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Husband’s affidavit filed 15 February 2024 in that regard. The Husband has also sought production of documents from the Wife in his Response to the Wife’s Application filed 15 February 2024. The documents sought by the Husband are the same type of documents (ie documents relating to trusts in which the Wife is a beneficiary) that this Honourable court has ordered the Husband to produce. This is relevant when taking into account section 112(2A)(g) of the Family Law Act on a costs application - “other matters the court considers relevant”.
…
14.It is submitted that the court may have regard to the Affidavit of the Husband filed 15 February 2024 for the purposes of determining the Costs Application made by the Wife. While the affidavit was not accepted for the purposes of the substantive application, the matters set out in the Husband’s affidavit will be, it is submitted, illuminating for the court. In that context, it is not surprising that the Wife did all she could to prevent the court, successfully, from having regard to that affidavit and the Husband’s Response filed prior to the commencement of business on 15 February 2024 (4 days prior to the hearing).
(emphasis added)
In the February 2024 reasons I recited Rule 1.33(1). Given the submissions it is necessary to repeat that recitation of that rule.
1.33 Failure to comply with a legislative provision or order
(1)If a step is taken after the time specified for taking the step by these Rules, the Family Law Regulations or a procedural order, the step is of no effect.
(2)If a party to a proceeding does not comply with these Rules, the Family Law Regulations or a procedural order, the court may do any of the following:
(a) dismiss all or part of the proceeding;
(b) set aside a step taken or an order made;
(c) determine the proceeding as if it were undefended;
(d) order costs;
(e)prohibit the party from taking a further step in the proceeding until the occurrence of a specified event;
(f) make any other order the court considers necessary, having regard to the overarching purpose of these Rules (see rule 1.04).
(emphasis added)
Hence absent an extension of a time limit or an express order or ruling to permit a document filed and served after the ordered time the document and hence its contents are “of no effect”. On 19 February 2024, after hearing submissions, I did not extend the time for filing.
I had ruled, on 19 February 2024, that the Husband’s affidavit filed 15 February 2024 and the other late filed material could not be relied upon before me in the application in a case proceedings. I did not give leave to rely on the late filed documents. No further application was made to rely on those documents. They were purported to be relied upon in the costs submissions as if I had not ruled on them or as if I had given leave for them to be relied upon.
Implicit application to revisit extant ruling?
It may be (in substance) submitted that on a cost application arising from a completed hearing, late filed documents that were not permitted to be relied upon in the completed hearing, are automatically, or by the effluxion of time, able to be relied upon. If it is so submitted, I reject that submission. I do so because the costs application is part and parcel of the very hearing where the documents could not be relied upon.
To the extent the Husband’s costs submissions are, or include, a de facto or implicit application to revisit the ruling or determination to rely on the late filed material, I dismiss that application.
I do so because:
·The costs application relates to the matter that has been heard and determined without reference to the late filed material now sought to be relied upon. To permit that would be contrary to the interests of justice and the obligation to finalise disputes; and
·I have no evidence that the Wife was put on notice before she filed her further written submissions that such an application would be made. The Wife has not had the opportunity to respond to such “revisiting” application; and
·Were I to permit reliance on those documents in this costs application the Wife would need to have the opportunity to respond to that material. There is no application by those seeking to revisit the ruling that she have the opportunity to do so. In any event such further elongation of the application would be contrary to the interests of justice and the overarching purpose of the rules; and
·The reasons set out in regard to why the ruling was made in the first place at [8] to [55] of the February 2024 reasons; and
·The parties are bound by applicable interim orders and need to show good reason or changed circumstances that would justify the unusual event of the revisiting of an interim or interlocutory ruling or determination. I have no evidence of either.
So I do not take into account the late filed documents.
I had no evidence before me on the 19 February 2024 hearing that the “wife has failed, and continues with that failure… to make proper discovery in relation to trusts of which she is a beneficiary.” An assertion from the bar table or in written submission is not evidence. Hence I do not accept, for the purposes of this costs application, that such allegation is a fact and I place no weight or that allegation in all the circumstances.
So, as to the Husband’s submission[4] that the Wife’s application seeking discovery was made in circumstances where she alleged that the Husband she has failed to make discovery but in relation to trusts of which she is a beneficiary she had not made disclosure, for the purposes of this costs application, I reject that submission.
[4] At [7].
So, as to the Husband’s submission[5] that the Wife’s allegations of the Husband being in breach of his obligations as to disclosure being “misleading”, I reject that submission.
[5] At [7].
Further submissions of the Husband
I reject any submission in the costs submissions, including at [3] that the scope of documents back to 2007 was improper. The Husband has sought to justify his disposing of shares and resigning positions of appointors under trust deeds based on a history of events going back to 2006.
The Husband submitted further that the Wife was not wholly successful, nor was the Husband wholly unsuccessful, in the interim property settlement, and that the application for costs is ‘almost entirely focused on the third parties (2nd – 4th Respondents)’[6]. I do take into account that on the interim property order application the Wife was substantially, but only partly, successful.
[6] Ibid, 3.
The Husband sought that the Application for Costs against him be dismissed, or in the alternate adjourned to trial and seek Court determination. I am not persuaded it is appropriate to defer the costs question of the application in a case to final hearing. The relevant events and submissions in regard to this application and the resistance to it and the conduct of that resistant is sufficiently clear and do not need the illumination of a final hearing.
The Brother and the Companies’ submissions
The Companies sought indulgence to file their submissions one day after the filing date that was ordered in the Orders of 27 February 2024. There was no prejudice to the Wife asserted and I extend the time for the filing of those submissions and so take them into account. The Brother and Companies’ submissions also objected to the Wife’s submissions on the basis of exceeding the five pages as limited by [8] of the 27 February 2024 order. I refer to my observations above as the Wife’s four and a bit submissions that also, as contemplated by order [8], the annexed letters said to contain offers.
The Brother and Companies submitted that there was a considerable degree of overlap between the orders sought by the Wife in her application with respect to discovery/disclosure and the documents produced by institutional subpoena respondents.[7]
6.On 13 November 2023, the Institutional Subpoena Respondents produced more than 2,300 pages of documents, including a large number of bank statements spanning periods from 2008 to the date of the subpoena.
7.The Companies submit that in her application, the Applicant Wife sought, in many cases, orders for production of duplicates of documents already produced by the Institutional Subpoena Respondents. In the submission of the Companies, this may amount to an abuse of process.
[7] Table of overlap of discovery/disclosure on Pages 3 and 4 of the Companies written submissions filed 13 March 2024.
As such, the Brother and Companies sought that the Court consider making no order as to costs, or that costs be reserved.
I have no evidence of the extent or manner of such overlap. An assertion from the bar table or in written submission is not evidence. None the less I accept there may well be a least a degree of overlap and the disclosure orders made on 24 February 2024, as discussed during the hearing, contemplated that possible overlap.
That a party has obtained documents on subpoena after requesting documents does not relieve another party from their obligation for full and frank financial disclosure of all relevant documents and information. The letters annexed to the Wife’s submissions show that it was in substance asserted that the solicitors for the Brother and the Companies did not understand the Wife’s case and appeared to assert they would make disclosure when they understood the Wife’s case. The Brother and the Companies are entitled to disagree with the Wife’s case on both legal and factual basis and may, at final hearing, turn out to be correct. But obligations of disclosure are not deferred until a party understands or agrees with the legal basis of the case against them and the final hearing is to be conducted where relevant information has been disclosed. The consequences of non-disclosure at final hearing are well known and onerous.
DECISION AS TO COSTS
Costs are compensatory. I am satisfied the Wife should be compensated for the costs of her application in a case including the costs involved in the costs application. It was appropriate for counsel and senior counsel to be briefed to assist the court and all counsel did. Pursuant to Rule 12.28 I will so certify.
In the matter of Marcos & Serina (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 373 I adopted counsel’s submission as to the underlying difference between the scale of costs of Schedule 3 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 or as are applicable by default in Division 1, and optional in Division 2, of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. (‘the Division 1 & 2 Costs Scale’). I recite counsel’s observations in that matter and that concept is relevant to this matter.
“… Ultimately, my submission was going to be based on one reading of both rules, and a reading of Division 2 rules are very much event or court-based event orientated in terms of it being court-based events and little regard to the work backstage, if I can put it that way… in terms of the professional costs incurred by a party via lawyers or disbursements in terms of counsel and whatnot (as complied to the applicable scale for Division 1)…”
The “lump sum” or event-based rules are often appropriate, but I am satisfied that the events of this application are better dealt with under the “work backstage” based provisions of the Division 1 & 2 Costs Scale rather than the court event-based provisions of the Division 2 costs scale because of the relative complexity of the application against multiple parties and the multitude of different matters contained in the application.
The Wife’s application filed on 13 November 2023 sought an order that the Husband, the Brother, and the Companies (‘the Respondents’) pay, on an indemnity basis, the costs of and incidental to the Wife’s application. In the initial oral submissions of senior counsel on 19 February 2024 the application was varied to seek standard or party/party costs.
I am satisfied that the Wife did seek to avoid the bringing of the disclosure application, and that it was the conduct of the Husband, the Brother and the Companies in how they dealt with their disclosure obligations which led to the bringing of the Wife’s application. I am so satisfied on account of correspondence between the solicitors for the Wife and the solicitors for the Brother and the Companies including where the latter refused to engage with persistent, and not unreasonable, requests for disclosure.
I am satisfied that the Wife did seek to avoid bringing the disclosure application and that the application was “needed” or appropriate.
I am not satisfied that compensatory costs should be ordered on account of the non-compliance with the filing directions by the respondents and Rule 1.33(2)(d) because I am not satisfied, in this case, that non-compliance with filing caused additional costs to the Wife notwithstanding that non-compliance would in some cases, of itself, justify a costs order.
Husband to pay one half of the Wife’s costs
Because;
·of the conduct of the Husband of himself utilising the resources of himself and the Wife for substantial legal costs; and
·the conduct of the Husband at the same time of opposing entirely the Wife’s property application; and
·the Wife’s interim property application being substantially (although not entirely) successful; and
·the Husband is not impecunious and can access sufficient money to fund his own substantial legal fees; and
·the Husband’s case on this application in a case is, at least partly, aligned with the case of the Brother and the Companies as to disclosure;
I am satisfied that it is appropriate to depart from the starting position of “each pay their own” of section 117(1). In all the circumstances it is appropriate that the Husband pay one half of the Wife’s costs, including of senior counsel, on the standard or “party/party” basis of the Division 1 & 2 Costs Scale as agreed or assessed.
Brother and Companies to pay one half of the Wife’s costs
Because:
·of the vigorous resistance to the Wife’s pressing for documents and information prior to the issue of the proceedings; and
·because the Wife has been substantially successful (the “unless” qualification of the orders is acknowledged) in her disclosure application against the Brother and the Companies;
I am satisfied that it is appropriate to depart from the starting position of “each pay their own” of section 117(1). In all the circumstances it is appropriate that the Brother and the companies pay one half of the Wife’s costs, including of senior counsel, on the standard or “party/party” basis of the Division 1 & 2 Costs Scale as agreed or assessed.
I am satisfied that the Husband should pay one half of the costs with the Brother and the Companies to pay the other half because the conduct of the interim property proceedings was not the work of the Brother or the Companies and I accept the Husband’s submission that the disclosure difficulty was more so likely the work of, and the orders more so in substance directed at the Brother and the Companies.
I certify that the preceding fifty (50) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge O'Shannessy. Associate:
Dated: 11 April 2024
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES
MLC 13771 of 2021 Respondents
Fourth Respondent:
D PTY LTD
0
3
2