Gorman and Huffman (No 2) - [2018] FamCA 936

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GORMAN & HUFFMAN (NO 2)

[2018] FamCA 936

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where application for costs by father – Where mother’s application to Review Registrar’s Determination dismissed – Consideration of applicable principles - Where not appropriate to order indemnity costs – Where father in receipt of grant of legal aid – Where in circumstances orders made for fixed sum on solicitor/client basis

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 19.18

Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 135 ALR 160
Colgate-Palmolive Company and Colgate-Palmolive Pty Limited v Cussons Pty Limited [1993] FCA 536
Collins & Collins (1985) FLC 91-603
D & D (Costs) (No. 2) [2010] FamCAFC 64
Fennessy & Gregorian [2009] FamCAFC 44
Greedy & Greedy (1982) FLC 91-250
Harris & Dewell & Harris (Costs) [2018] FamCAFC 180
Hawkins & Roe [2012] FamCAFC 77
Huffman & Gorman [2015] FamCA 317
Huffman & Gorman [2018] FamCA 712
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2007] NSWSC 23
Joyce & Fante [2013] FamCAFC 141
Limousin & Limousin [2007] FamCAFC 1178
Luadaka & Luadaka (1998) FLC 92-830
Parke & the Estate of the Late A Parke (2016) FLC 93-748
Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311
Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns [2000] FamCA 681

APPLICANT:

Ms Gorman

RESPONDENT:

Mr Huffman

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

3882

2011

DATE DELIVERED:

16 November 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:	Foster J
HEARING DATE:	By way of written submissions last received on 25 October 2018

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Martin Street Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Soden Legal

Orders

That the mother Ms Gorman pay the father’s costs of and incidental to her application for Review of a Registrar’s Determination in the sum of $6,250.00 within three months from this date.

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 Gorman & Huffman (No 2) 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 PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 3882 of 2011

Ms Gorman

Applicant

And

Mr Huffman

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The application for determination is the father’s application for costs arising from orders made by this Court on 12 September 2018.
Orders on that day were made as follows:
(1)That the mother’s Application in a Case filed 20 June 2018 be dismissed.
(2)That any application for costs be made by way of written submissions filed and served within one month from this date with any submissions in response to…

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 Gorman and Huffman (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Gorman and Huffman (No 2) [2018] FamCA 936
Case: [2018] FamCA 936
Decision Date: 16 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Gorman and Huffman (No 2)*, Foster J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered an application by the mother, Ms Gorman, for a review of a Registrar's determination. The father, Mr Huffman, was the respondent. The specific nature of the dispute leading to the Registrar's determination is not detailed in the provided text, but the application before Foster J concerned the costs associated with Ms Gorman's review application.

The central legal issue before Foster J was the appropriate order for costs following Ms Gorman's unsuccessful application for a review of the Registrar's determination. The court was required to determine whether costs should be awarded to the father and, if so, in what amount.

Foster J ordered that the mother, Ms Gorman, pay the father's costs of and incidental to her application for review of the Registrar's determination. These costs were quantified at $6,250.00 and were to be paid within three months from the date of the order.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the mother Ms Gorman pay the father’s costs of and incidental to her application for Review of a Registrar’s Determination in the sum of $6,250.00 within three months from this date.

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

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.