FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| GORDON & GORDON | [2017] FCCA 2899 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Costs – application for indemnity costs. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.117(1), 117(2), 117(2A) Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), s.79 |
| Applicant: | MS GORDON |
| Respondent: | MR GORDON |
| File Number: | MLC 6075 of 2016 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Wilson |
| Hearing date: | On the papers |
| Date of Last Submission: | 11 October 2017 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 24 November 2017 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr P. Crofts |
| Solicitor for the Applicant: | Juliana Smith Barrister & Solicitor |
| Respondent in person |
ORDERS
The respondent pay the costs of the applicant fixed in the sum of $3,000.00.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Gordon & Gordon is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLC 6075 of 2016
| MS GORDON |
Applicant
And
| MR GORDON |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
On 4 October 2017, I made orders for the division of property between the parties in this case. At the time, the respondent husband Mr Gordon, was not represented. The applicant wife Ms Gordon, was represented by Mr P. Crofts of counsel. When I pronounced orders, the parties said they did not require me to provide written reasons for my decision.
On the pressing by Mr Crofts, I gave the parties liberty to make such submissions as they wished in relation to costs. In response to that invitation, on 11 October 2017 Mr Crofts provided written submissions. The husband did not provide any written material.
The orders I made on 4 October 2017 represented an approximately equal division of assets between the parties.
On behalf of the wife, in his written submissions dated…
Continue reading Gordon & Gordon
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Gordon & Gordon [2017] FCCA 2899
- Case
- [2017] FCCA 2899
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent had acted unlawfully in failing to implement its own decision, and if so, what remedy was available to the applicant.
Judge Wilson found that the respondent had failed to give effect to its own order, which constituted an unlawful failure to perform its statutory duty. The court applied the principle that statutory bodies are bound by their own determinations and must act in accordance with the law. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs fixed at $3,000.00.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The respondent pay the costs of the applicant fixed in the sum of $3,000.00.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.