Guild & Stasiuk (No. 2)

Case [2020] FamCA 564


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GUILD & STASIUK (NO. 2) [2020] FamCA 564
FAMILY LAW – INDEMNITY COSTS – whether an order on that basis should be made – review of authorities.
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 128
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 90G, 90K, 117(1), 117(2), 117(2A)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 19.5, 19.18
Statute of Gloucester 1278, 6 Edw 1
Addison & Leahy [2008] FamCA 248
Andrews v Barnes (1888) 39 Ch D 133
Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd v De Jager [1984] VR 483
Brott v Grey [2000] FCA 1836
Cachia & Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403
Christie v Christie (1873) LR 8 Ch App 499
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225
Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Razzi (No 2) (1991) 30 FCR 64
Corporation of Burford v Lenthall [1743] 26 ER 731
Cummings v Lewis & Ors (1993) 41 FCR 559
Degman Pty Ltd (in liq) v Wright (No 2) [1983] 2 NSWLR 354
EMI Records Ltd v Ian Cameron Wallace Ltd [1983] Ch 59
Fitzgerald (as child representative for A (Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania) v Fish (2005) 33 Fam LR 123
Forester v Read (1870) LR 6 Ch App 40
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397
Garnet v Bradley [1878] 3 AC 944
Goodridge & Beadle (No 2) [2019] FamCA 786
Gordon & Gordon [2017] FCCA 2899
Gordon & Gordon(No 2) [2018] FCCA 1617
Harlen & Hellyar (No 2) [2020] FamCA 413
Hearl & Digby [2020] FamCA 474
Helljay v Investments Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 74 ALJR 68
Horne (in his capacity as trustee of the bankrupt estate of Narain) v Narain [2017] FCCA 1190
Howes v Barber (1852) 18 QB 588
Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association Inc (1986) ATPR 40-748
Huntsman Chemical Co Australia Ltd v International Pools Australia Ltd (1995) 36 NSWLR 242
In the Marriage of Kohan (1992) 16 Fam LR 245
In the Marriage ofRobinson and Higginbotham (1991) 14 Fam LR 559
Jones v Coxeter [1742] 26 ER 642
Knight & FP Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534
Mansfield & Mansfield [2019] FamCAFC 186
McKewins Hairdressing & Beauty Supplies Pty Ltd (in liq) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 74 ALJR 1000
Medlon & Medlon (No 6) (2015) 54 Fam LR 1
Mordue v Palmer (1870) LR 6 Ch App 22
Nine Films and Television Pty Ltd v Ninox Television Ltd [2006] FCA 1046
Northern Territory v Sangare (2019) 265 CLR 164
Norton v Morphett (1995) 83 A Crim R 90
NSW Medical Defence Union Ltd v Crawford & Bailey (1993) 31 NSWLR 469
PCRZ Investments Pty Ltd v National Golf Holdings Ltd [2002] VSCA 24
Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311
Pirrotta v Citibank Ltd (1998) 72 SASR 259
Prantage & Prantage [2013] FamCAFC 105
Re JJT; ex parte Victoria Legal Aid (1998) 195 CLR 184

Continue reading Guild & Stasiuk (No. 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Guild & Stasiuk (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 564
Case
[2020] FamCA 564
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Guild & Stasiuk (No. 2)*, the applicant sought costs on an indemnity basis from the respondent. The dispute concerned the quantum of costs to be awarded following earlier proceedings between the parties. The matter came before Wilson J of the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant was entitled to an order for indemnity costs, and if so, how that sum should be determined. The Court was required to consider the circumstances justifying such an award and the appropriate mechanism for quantifying the costs.

Wilson J determined that the applicant was entitled to an order for indemnity costs. The Court reasoned that the respondent's conduct in the litigation warranted such an award, although the specific reasons for this conclusion are not detailed in the provided text. The Court then ordered that the parties endeavour to agree upon the sum payable by way of indemnity costs by a specified date. In the event of their failure to reach an agreement, the costs were to be assessed by a registrar.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

On or before 4pm on 14 August 2020 the parties are to agree upon the sum to be paid by the respondent to the applicant by way of costs on an indemnity basis.

2.

In default of agreement indemnity costs are to be assessed by a registrar.

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.