Habib and Ibrahim (No. 2) - [2018] FamCA 777

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HABIB & IBRAHIM (NO. 2)

[2018] FamCA 777

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Costs application made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Consideration of applicable principles – Where defended parenting proceedings – Where significant issues for determination – Where orders ultimately made as contended for by ICL - Ordered that each party pay by way of contribution to the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs the sum of $7,500.00.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 19.18(1)

Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 135 ALR 160
De Roma & De Roma [2013] FamCA 566
Gahen & Gahen (No 2) [2013] FamCA 936
Habib and Ibrahim [2018] FamCA 633
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2007] NSWSC 23
Parke & the Estate of the Late A.Parke (2016) FLC 93-748

APPLICANT:

Mr Habib

RESPONDENT:

Ms Ibrahim

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Bell

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

3236

2016

DATE DELIVERED:

28 September 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Foster J

HEARING DATE:

By way of written submissions last received on 17 September 2018

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Godden Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Karras Partners Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Stephen W Bell & Associates

Orders

That within two months from this date the father pay to Legal Aid NSW by way of contribution to the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs the sum of $7,500.00.
That within two months from this date the mother pay to Legal Aid NSW by way of contribution to the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs the sum of $7,500.00.

The Court Notes That

The parties are able to make application to Legal Aid NSW for a waiver in whole or as to part of their obligations arising from these orders.

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 Habib & Ibrahim (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 3236 of 2016

Mr Habib

Applicant

And

Ms Ibrahim

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The application for determination is the application by the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) in these proceedings for an order for costs of and incidental to the ICL’s engagement in these proceedings.
The proceedings as to final parenting were resolved following a seven day defended trial and delivery of reasons for judgment and orders made 19 July 2018: Habib and Ibrahim [2018] FamCA 633.
Orders were as follows:
(1)That all previous parenting orders in relation to the…

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 Habib and Ibrahim (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Habib and Ibrahim (No. 2) [2018] FamCA 777
Case: [2018] FamCA 777
Decision Date: 28 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Habib and Ibrahim (No. 2)*, Foster J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered an application for costs contributions towards the Independent Children’s Lawyer. The dispute concerned the financial obligations of the father and mother to contribute to these costs.

The primary legal issue before the Court was the quantum of contribution each parent should make towards the costs incurred by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. The Court was required to determine an appropriate and equitable distribution of this financial responsibility between the parties.

Foster J ordered that both the father and the mother were to pay the sum of $7,500.00 to Legal Aid NSW as a contribution to the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs within two months of the date of the orders. The Court also noted that the parties retained the ability to apply to Legal Aid NSW for a waiver, in whole or in part, of these payment obligations.

Orders

Orders of the court

That within two months from this date the father pay to Legal Aid NSW by way of contribution to the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs the sum of $7,500.00.

That within two months from this date the mother pay to Legal Aid NSW by way of contribution to the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs the sum of $7,500.00.

The Court Notes That

The parties are able to make application to Legal Aid NSW for a waiver in whole or as to part of their obligations arising from these orders.

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.