Harlen & Hellyar (No 2)

Case [2020] FamCA 413

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HARLEN & HELLYAR (NO. 2) [2020] FamCA 413
FAMILY LAW – COSTS – several applications dealt with by judges and registrars where costs orders were reserved – injunction application heard by McEvoy J – applicant seeking reserved costs on various applications – dissection of factual scenario surrounding each costs order – review of authorities.
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 140
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 90UI, 117
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), r 13.07
Statute of Gloucester 1278, 6 Edw 1
Andrews v Barnes (1888) 39 Ch D 133
Briginshaw & Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Cachia & Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403
Cholmondeley v Lord Clinton [1815] 34 ER 515
Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Razzi (No 2) (1991) 101 ALR 425
Corporation of Burford v Lenthall (1743) 2 Atk 551
Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd (in liq) v Mendall Properties Pty Ltd [1995] 1 VR 1
Goodridge & Beadle (No 2) [2019] FamCA 786
Harlen & Hellyar [2020] FamCA 21
Jones & Coxeter (1742) 26 ER 642
Kallinicos v Hunt (2005) 65 NSWLR 561
Knight & FP Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178
Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702
Lionheart Management Group Pty Ltd v Stanley [1999] VSC 502
Re JJT; ex parte Victoria Legal Aid (1998) 195 CLR 184
Talbot v General Television Corporation Pty Ltd [1980] VR 224
APPLICANT: Ms Harlen
RESPONDENT: Mr Hellyar
FILE NUMBER: MLC 13634 of 2017
DATE DELIVERED: 18 May 2020
PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne
PLACE HEARD: Melbourne
JUDGMENT OF: The Honourable Justice Wilson
HEARING DATE: 5 & 14 May 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr J.W. St John QC
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Peter Szabo Family Law
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr P. M. O’Shannessy SC
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mann Lawyers

Orders

  1. The applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application before McEvoy J determined on 28 January 2020 be paid on a party party basis by the respondent. 

  2. The applicant’s costs of and incidental to the hearing on 26 June 2019 are costs of and incidental to the hearing on 2 August 2019 to be paid on a party party basis by the respondent. 

  3. The applicant’s costs of and incidental to the hearing on 2 August 2019 be paid on a party party basis by the respondent. 

  4. The applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application on 14 February 2020 be paid on a party party basis by the respondent, limited to junior counsel’s costs.

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 Harlen & Hellyar 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…

Continue reading Harlen & Hellyar (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Harlen & Hellyar (No 2) [2020] FamCA 413
Case
[2020] FamCA 413
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for costs following earlier proceedings between Harlen and Hellyar (No 2). The applicant sought orders for costs in relation to several interlocutory applications and hearings that had occurred before McEvoy J.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of which party should bear the costs associated with the various applications and hearings that had taken place. This involved considering the outcome of those earlier proceedings and whether the applicant had been successful in a manner that warranted an award of costs against the respondent.

Justice Wilson ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs on a party-party basis for the application heard on 28 January 2020, and for the hearing on 2 August 2019. The costs for the hearing on 26 June 2019 were to be treated as costs incidental to the hearing on 2 August 2019 and paid by the respondent. Additionally, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs for the application on 14 February 2020, but these costs were limited to junior counsel's fees.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application before McEvoy J determined on 28 January 2020 be paid on a party party basis by the respondent.

2.

The applicant’s costs of and incidental to the hearing on 26 June 2019 are costs of and incidental to the hearing on 2 August 2019 to be paid on a party party basis by the respondent.

3.

The applicant’s costs of and incidental to the hearing on 2 August 2019 be paid on a party party basis by the respondent.

4.

The applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application on 14 February 2020 be paid on a party party basis by the respondent, limited to junior counsel’s costs.

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.