Galvan & Galvan & Ors

[2016] FamCA 102

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GALVAN & GALVAN AND ORS [2016] FamCA 102

FAMILY LAW – COSTS

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Galvan Snr

RESPONDENT:	Ms Galvan Snr
SECOND AND THIRD RESPONDENTS	Ms Galvan Jnr and Mr Galvan Jnr
FILE NUMBER:	CAC	31	of		2010

DATE DELIVERED: 25 February 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra

PLACE HEARD: Canberra

JUDGMENT OF: Faulks DCJ

HEARING DATE:

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Kumar

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Howard

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:		Dobinson Davey Clifford Simpson
COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD RESPONDENTS:		Mr de Robillard

Orders

1. That to the extent that the communication from Mr Galvan Snr on 31 December 2015 constituted an informal application for costs and noting that that application was withdrawn on 29 January 2016 the application for costs on his behalf is dismissed. 

2. Otherwise that there is no order as to costs.

3. The matter is removed from the pending cases list. 

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Galvan & Galvan and Ors 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 Snr

Applicant

And

Ms Galvan Snr

Respondent

And

Ms Galvan Jnr
Second Respondent

And

Mr Galvan Jnr
Third Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. At the conclusion of my delivery of my Reasons for Judgment on 9 December 2015 I left open the possibility that either party may wish to make an Application for Costs of the primary proceedings.  These matters were dealt with in paragraphs 195-198 of my Reasons for Judgment in December. 

2. I made it clear at that point that I felt it was inadvisable for the parties to spend further money in applying for costs, but noted that it was their right to do so. 

3. Subsequently, before the end of December 2015, an e-mail was received from Mr Galvan Snr indicating that he wished to make submissions “as to costs on the basis of offers of compromise exchanged between the parties”. 

4. At my direction my Associate informed the parties that if such submissions were to be made they were to be filed by 25 January 2016.  Subsequently, on 29 January 2016 Mr Galvan Snr informed my Associate as follows

   … as a matter of courtesy … I will not be making any submissions in chief with respect to costs in the above matter.      

5. I have previously expressed my views about the fact that this is not an appropriate matter for an order for costs.  In default of there being any other Application for Costs that will be the final formal order of this Court. 

6. I interpret that comment as indicating that Mr Galvan Snr had determined not to pursue any Application for Costs and accordingly accepting for a moment that the initial communication from Mr Galvan Snr constituted an informal or oral Application for Costs that application having been withdrawn, is accordingly dismissed.    

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Deputy Chief Justice Faulks delivered on 25 February 2016.

Associate:

Date:  25 February 2016