Frazier & Valdez

In the case of Frazier & Valdez, the respondent in two appeals, Mr. Valdez, filed an application for security for costs under Rule 19.05(2) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth). The appellant, Ms. Frazier, filed a response to this application, which sought orders beyond the scope of the initial application. The central legal issues before the court were whether the appellant was permitted to pursue additional orders on the security for costs application, whether the appellant could rely on over 100 pages of documents attached to their affidavit and an additional 1300 pages of documents contained in seven bound volumes, and whether these materials were confined to facts relevant to the issues in dispute on this application and admissible as evidence under Rule 15.09(1) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

The court found that the orders sought by the appellant in their response were vexatious and an abuse of process. The court ruled that the appellant should not be permitted to rely on the extensive subject material in their response to the security for costs application. The court determined that there were justifying circumstances within the meaning of Section 117(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for an order for security for costs in this case. The court set the amount of security for costs at $15,000, to be paid by the respondent within 28 days of the date of the order. If the respondent failed to comply with this order, the appeals would be stayed pending payment of the said amount. The court also ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to this application on a party/party basis in default of agreement.

The final orders were as follows: the respondent must pay $15,000 as security for any costs awarded to the applicant in relation to the appeals; if the respondent fails to comply with this order, the appeals will be stayed pending payment; and the respondent must pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to this application on a party/party basis. The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.