Franklin and Ennis (No.2)
Case
•
[2018] FCCA 2351
•31 August 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Franklin and Ennis (No.2) [2018] FCCA 2351
[2018] FCCA 2351
31 August 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Franklin and Ennis (No.2)*, Judge Harper of the Federal Court of Australia considered the dispute between the applicant and the respondent concerning the final orders to be made in the proceeding.
The primary legal issue before the Court was how to resolve the outstanding matters of proposed orders and costs, particularly in circumstances where the parties might not reach an agreement.
Judge Harper directed the parties to submit an agreed minute of proposed orders within 14 days, with the possibility of these orders being made in chambers. The Court also stipulated that these orders must address the question of costs. If the parties could not agree on the proposed orders, the applicant was to arrange for the matter to be relisted for further consideration by the Court, with notice to the respondent. Any applications regarding costs would be determined by written submissions, unless an oral hearing was requested.
The primary legal issue before the Court was how to resolve the outstanding matters of proposed orders and costs, particularly in circumstances where the parties might not reach an agreement.
Judge Harper directed the parties to submit an agreed minute of proposed orders within 14 days, with the possibility of these orders being made in chambers. The Court also stipulated that these orders must address the question of costs. If the parties could not agree on the proposed orders, the applicant was to arrange for the matter to be relisted for further consideration by the Court, with notice to the respondent. Any applications regarding costs would be determined by written submissions, unless an oral hearing was requested.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
29
Statutory Material Cited
4
Fenton & Marvel
[2013] FamCAFC 132
Stanford v Stanford
[2012] HCA 52
Bevan & Bevan
[2013] FamCAFC 116