Gorbold and Zouh

[2019] FamCA 619

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GORBOLD & ZOUH [2019] FamCA 619

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the applicant seeks costs on an indemnity basis – Where the respondent was wholly unsuccessful in the proceedings – Where the respondent failed to comply with various directions throughout the course of the proceedings –Where the applicant was the second respondent in the substantive proceedings and had intervened on a bona fide basis – Where the applicant was forced to incur significant legal costs while the respondent did not incur any – Where there was an offer of settlement on the part of the applicant – Where the Court found it just to make an order for costs – Where the  Court was not satisfied that the respondent’s conduct should give rise to an order for indemnity costs – Where it was unlikely that the respondent had the capacity to meet a significant costs order against her – Orders made for costs to be paid in a fixed amount.  

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117
Family Law Rules (Cth) r 19.18

Colgate-Palmolive Co. and Anor v Cussons Pty Limited (1993) 118 ALR 248 Woodley & Time and Anor [2008] FamCA 162

APPLICANT: Ms Gorbold

RESPONDENT: Ms Zouh

FILE NUMBER: SYC 1569 of 2015

DATE DELIVERED: 4 September 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Johnston J

HEARING DATE: 20 August 2019

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Roser

FOR THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

Orders

1. Ms Zouh pay to Ms Gorbold the sum of 20,000 being the Court’s assessment of Ms Gorbold’s appropriate costs in these proceedings.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 1569 of 2015

Ms Gorbold

Applicant

And

Ms Zouh

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by Ms Gorbold, the second respondent in the substantive proceedings, for an order for costs.

2. Ms Gorbold is the daughter of Mr Gorbold (“the husband”). The husband and Ms Zouh (“the wife”) were previously married.  Their marriage broke down and the wife commenced property proceedings.

3. The husband and Ms Gorbold had owned a property at J Street, Suburb G, New South Wales (“the J Street property”) as tenants in common.  In 2014, after the husband and wife had separated, the husband transferred his interest in the J Street property to Ms Gorbold for $1.

4. The wife filed an application seeking an order that this transfer be set aside…