FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN
MR GIN
Applicant
AND
MS HING
Respondent
ORDER MADE…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Gin & Hing (No 11)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Gin & Hing (No 11) [2024] FedCFamC1F 365
Case
[2024] FedCFamC1F 365
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Gin & Hing (No 11), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) was called upon to address issues of costs following a lengthy and complex parenting trial. The applicant, Mr Gin, and the respondent, Ms Hing, were engaged in a protracted dispute over parenting arrangements for their child. The matter was finalised on 22 November 2023, following a trial that had commenced on 8 May 2019. The court was tasked with determining the allocation of costs between the parties, including the costs associated with an unsuccessful stay application filed by Mr Gin.
The central legal issue before the court was the allocation of costs incurred during the extensive litigation process. Specifically, the court had to consider the costs from the trial period, as well as those related to Mr Gin’s unsuccessful stay application. The court also needed to decide on the costs associated with a subsequent application made by Mr Gin on 20 May 2024, which was dismissed by the court. The court's decision needed to reflect the nature of the litigation, the outcomes of the various applications, and the principles governing costs in family law proceedings.
The court, in its decision, ordered that Mr Gin must pay Ms Hing’s costs from the trial period up until the finalisation of the matter. The costs were to be assessed on a party/party basis by a registrar and were to be completed by 29 July 2024. Additionally, Mr Gin was required to pay the costs associated with his unsuccessful stay application, once assessed by a registrar, within 30 days of the assessment. Furthermore, the court dismissed Mr Gin’s 20 May 2024 application and ordered him to pay Ms Hing’s costs of $3,000 relating to that application. The form of these orders is subject to entry in the court's records, and any minor typographical or grammatical errors may be subject to review or variation.
Orders
Orders of the court
MLC 4528 of 2010
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN
MR GIN
Applicant
AND
MS HING
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY
WILSON J
DATE OF ORDER
31 MAY 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT –
1. The father must pay the mother’s costs of and incidental to this proceeding from 8 May 2019 to 22 November 2023.
2. The costs assessed in order one above must be assessed by a registrar on a party/party basis such assessment to be completed by 29 July 2024.
3. The mother’s costs of and incidental to the father’s unsuccessful stay application must be assessed by a registrar on a party/party basis and once assessed, paid by the father within 30 days of the registrar assessing those party/party costs.
4. The father’s application in a proceeding dated 20 May 2024 is dismissed.
5. The father must pay the mother’s costs of $3,000 of and incidental to the father’s 20 May 2024 application.
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).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.