Hamada & Falzone

[2024] FedCFamC2F 1227

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Hamada & Falzone [2024] FedCFamC2F 1227   

File number(s):	SYC 4355 of 2022
Judgment of:	JUDGE STREET
Date of judgment:	3 September 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – ICL Costs – financial hardship – ICL’s request for costs against the mother dismissed
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	6
Date of hearing:	3 September 2024
Place:	Sydney
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Mr A Maroulis
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms A Wallace
Solicitor for the Respondent:	JB Solicitors
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Mr T Gabrial
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	JWP Lawyers

ORDERS

SYC 4355 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MR HAMADA

Applicant

AND:

MS FALZONE

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE STREET
DATE OF ORDER:	3 SEPTEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant father pay the ICL’s costs fixed in the sum of $2,119.50.

2.The ICL’s request for costs against the respondent mother is dismissed.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE STREET

1. These are parenting proceedings in respect of which the parties have been able to successfully agree upon final orders. The ICL has asked for a costs order against the respondent mother (“the mother”) in the sum of $2,119.50. 

2. Ms Wallace, on behalf of the mother identified the limited financial circumstances which the mother has, and that she would suffer hardship by reason of being required to pay the amount being sought.  Reference was made to the mother having to pull her child out of extracurricular lessons due to the cost incurred already in respect of these proceedings. 

3. The Court has taken into account each of the factors under section 117(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The Court accepts the submissions of Ms Wallace that the financial circumstances of the mother were against the making of a costs order. The Court is not satisfied that there are circumstances justifying the Court making a costs order.

4. In the present case, the Court is satisfied that it is just that no order as to costs should be made in favour of the ICL in respect of the claim by the mother. 

5. Accordingly, the Court makes no order for costs by the ICL against the respondent mother.

6. It is for these reasons the Court makes the above orders.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Street.

Associate:

Dated:       3 September 2024