FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| HAMPTON & FARLEY AND ORS (NO 3) | [2013] FamCA 890 |
| FAMILY LAW – COSTS – JURISDCITION – Where there are competing costs applications arising from primary proceedings for, inter alia, property settlement under Part VIIIAB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the FLA”) – Where the applicant in the primary proceedings (“the wife”) seeks costs against the second and third respondents – Where the second and third respondents seek costs against the wife – Where the determination of the claim brought by the second and third respondents in the primary proceedings required the invoking of the court’s accrued jurisdiction – Where the second and third respondents seek costs against the wife pursuant to the costs regime guided by s 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (“the CPA”) and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“the UCPR”) – Where the wife seeks costs against the second and third respondents pursuant to the costs regime set out in s 117 of the FLA – Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the competing costs applications under s 177 of the FLA given that the claim of the second and third respondents in the property proceedings was heard in the court’s accrued jurisdiction |
Civil Procedure Act 2005(NSW)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Family Law Act 1975(Cth)
Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth)
Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)
Bonic v Pacific General Securities Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1221
Bryer & Bryer & Anor [2012] FamCA 884
C Pty Ltd v PGW As Liquidator of S Pty Ltd (in liq) (2011) FLC 93-485
Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union & Anor v Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (No 2) (2013) 296 ALR 443
Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570
Finlayson & Finlayson & Gillam (2002) FLC 93-121
Footes v Southern Cross Mine Management Pty Ltd (2007) 234 CLR 52
Gallieni & Gallieni & Ors [2013] FamCA 314
Hitch & Hitch (2012) 47 Fam LR 603
Jones & Anor & Markham [2010] FamCA 1026
Martin v the State of New South Wales (No 6) [2012] NSWLEC 227
Philip Morris Inc v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd; United States Surgical Corp v Hospital Products International Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 457
Starr-Diamond v Diamond (No. 4) [2013] NSWSC 811
Skinner & Alfonso-Skinner (Costs) [2010] FamCA 1108
Telfer (as Executor for the Estate of the Late Telfer) v Telfer (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 823
Thorpe & Thorpe & Anor [2012] FamCA 719
| APPLICANT: | Ms Hampton |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Farley |
| SECOND RESPONDENT | Mr Farley (Jnr) |
| THIRD RESPONDENT: | Farley and Son Pty Ltd |
| FILE NUMBER: | MLC | 116 | of | 2011 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 13 September 2013 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Le Poer Trench J |
| HEARING DATE: | 14 August 2013; and written submissions filed on 30 August 2013 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr Nicholson |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE… |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Hampton and Farley and Ors (No 3) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] FamCA 890
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was the extent to which the wife should be ordered to pay the reasonable expenses incurred by the second respondent in relation to Ms T Farley's attendance at court in Sydney for cross-examination. The court also had to determine the costs applications of the wife, the second respondent, and the third respondent more broadly.
Le Poer Trench J reasoned that the wife should bear the reasonable expenses of Ms Farley's attendance for cross-examination, provided these expenses could be substantiated by receipts or similar documentation demonstrating actual costs incurred. The court further ordered that the cost applications of the wife, the second respondent, and the third respondent were otherwise dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The reasonable expenses incurred by the second respondent in having Ms T Farley attend at the court in Sydney for cross-examination are to be paid by the wife. Such expenses are to be quantified by reference to the provision of receipts, or such like documents, which demonstrate the costs actually incurred.
2.
The cost applications of each of the wife the second and the third respondents are otherwise dismissed.
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.