Galvan and Galvan

[2011] FamCA 1097

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GALVAN & GALVAN [2011] FamCA 1097

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Between parties – neither party in receipt of legal aid – where the husband was wholly unsuccessful – the husband pay the wife’s costs

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 117

APPLICANT: Mr Galvan

RESPONDENT: Ms Galvan

FILE NUMBER: CAC 31 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 10 November 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra

PLACE HEARD: Canberra

JUDGMENT OF: Faulks DCJ

HEARING DATE: 10 November 2011

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Not applicable

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Not applicable

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Not applicable

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Dobinson Davey Clifford Simpson

Orders

1. The applicant husband will pay the respondent wife’s costs of and incidental to the Application in a Case dismissed this day either as agreed or in default of agreement as assessed (taxed).

2. The interim application is finalised.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Galvan & Galvan has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER:  CAC 31 of 2010

Mr Galvan

Applicant

And

Ms Galvan

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In relation to this application the primary position under section 117 of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) is that each party will bear his or own costs. Section 117(2) provides that, notwithstanding s 117(1), if the Court believes it is appropriate to do so in the interests of justice, the Court may make an order as to costs. If it does make such an order the Court is obliged to take into account the provisions of s 117(2A) of the Act.

2. In this regard no evidence is put before me about the financial circumstances of the parties other than that which is disclosed in the documents filed in support of the primary proceedings before the court. 

3. Legal aid is not a factor which either party advances as being appropriate for my consideration as to the issue of costs. 

4. In this matter the application made on behalf of the husband was totally unsuccessful.  Not only was it unsuccessful it was not even properly thought through in the first place.  It was an inappropriate application made at an inappropriate time for a purpose that had no bearing upon the proceedings before the Court.  If I had to find a definition of an application that had been wholly unsuccessful, this would have to be as close to it as I could get.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Deputy Chief Justice Faulks delivered on 10 November 2011.

Legal Associate:

Date:  21 February 2013