Grendel and Choat - [2019] FamCA 368

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GRENDEL & CHOAT

[2019] FamCA 368

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Costs application following a parenting hearing.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Coulter & Gerardine [2015] FamCA 287
Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725

APPLICANT:

Ms Grendel

RESPONDENT:

Mr Choat

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

2065

2010

DATE DELIVERED:

5 June 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Watts J

HEARING DATE:

30 May 2019

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Litigant in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Litigant in person

Orders

The Response to an Application in a Case filed 26 March 2018 is dismissed.
The Response to an Application in a Case filed 27 May 2019 is dismissed.
The father pay to the mother costs in respect of the proceedings in the sum of $35,000.

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 Grendel & Choat 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 2065 of 2010

Ms Grendel

Applicant

And

Mr Choat

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The mother seeks orders for costs.
On 31 January 2019, following a five day parenting trial, final parenting orders were made in favour of the mother for sole parental responsibility of the parties’ 13 year old child and that the child live with her mother and not spend any face to face time or communicate with her father except for the circumstances provided for in the orders.
On 27 February 2019, the mother filed and served an Application in a Case (which the court dated 5 March 2019) seeking that the father pay indemnity costs in the sum of $82,452 paid by the mother “to third parties” in respect of the parenting proceedings brought by the father and costs for enforcing financial orders dated 10 November 2011 and 8 November 2016.
The mother is a professional. She also seeks the father pay a further amount by way of indemnity costs in the sum of $60,165 in respect of work the mother did on her own account in the same set of proceedings.
The proceedings for enforcement of financial orders dated 10 November 2011 and 8 November 2016 were concluded when orders were made on 10 August 2018. At that time, I heard and dismissed the Independent Children's Lawyer’s application for costs in respect of that hearing. The mother’s costs had not been reserved. Rule 19.08(2) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) (“the Rules”) provides that an application for costs may be made by filing an…

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 Grendel and Choat

Details

AGLC: Grendel and Choat [2019] FamCA 368
Case: [2019] FamCA 368
Decision Date: 5 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Grendel and Choat, heard before Watts J, the proceedings concerned applications made by the father in March 2018 and May 2019, to which the mother responded. The precise nature of the underlying dispute is not detailed, but the court's orders indicate that the father sought to advance certain positions through these applications, which were ultimately unsuccessful.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of the father's applications filed in March 2018 and May 2019. The court was required to consider the merits of these applications and decide whether they should be granted or dismissed. A further issue was the allocation of costs associated with the proceedings.

Watts J dismissed both of the father's applications. The reasoning for this dismissal is not elaborated upon in the provided text. However, the court ordered the father to pay the mother's costs in the sum of $35,000, reflecting the outcome of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Response to an Application in a Case filed 26 March 2018 is dismissed.

The Response to an Application in a Case filed 27 May 2019 is dismissed.

The father pay to the mother costs in respect of the proceedings in the sum of $35,000.

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.