HAVEN & HAVEN

Case [2020] FamCA 954

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HAVEN & HAVEN [2020] FamCA 954
FAMILY LAW – NATIONAL ARBITRATION LIST – arbitrator determining property alteration proceeding and spousal maintenance application – arbitrator dismissed wife’s applications – respondent applying for indemnity costs of more than $240,000 – wife penniless – husband bettering offer of compromise – order sought by respondent not just – lesser sum ordered.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 13E, 74(1), 75(2), 79, 106A, 117
Armington & Armington and Ors (No. 3) [2020] FamCA 765
Bacall & Zagar (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 598
Blakeley & Jaine (No. 4) [2020] FamCA 811
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333
Colgate–Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225
Cutts v Head [1984] 1 All ER 597
Denison & Tilford [2020] FamCA 604
Easom & Burhan (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 14
Fitzgerald v Fish (2005) 33 Fam LR 123
Goodridge & Beadle and Ors (No 2) [2019] FamCA 786
Guild & Stasiuk (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 564
Harlen & Hellyar (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 413
Hearl & Digby [2020] FamCA 474
In the Marriage of Hogan (1986) 10 Fam LR 681
Knight v F.P. Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178
Manesh & Manesh (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 904
Medlon & Medlon (No 6) (2015) 54 Fam LR 1
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
APPLICANT: Ms Haven
RESPONDENT: Mr Haven
FILE NUMBER: PAC 5743 of 2018
DATE DELIVERED: 19 November 2020
PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne
PLACE HEARD: Melbourne
JUDGMENT OF: Wilson J
HEARING DATE: 10 November 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Not applicable
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Not applicable
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Not applicable
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Messenger Family Law

Orders

  1. The applicant must pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding from 18 July 2019 onwards on an indemnity basis in the sum of $30,000.

  2. The applicant must make that payment within 90 days of 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 Haven & Haven 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: PAC 5743 of 2018

Ms Haven

Applicant

And

Mr Haven

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. Following the arbitration of this proceeding, the arbitrator dismissed the applicant’s amended application for property settlement and spousal maintenance.  The respondent has applied for an order for the payment of his costs on an indemnity basis.  Those costs were said to exceed $240,000.  The applicant contends she has no capacity to meet a costs order…

Continue reading HAVEN & HAVEN

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
HAVEN & HAVEN [2020] FamCA 954
Case
[2020] FamCA 954
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Haven & Haven*, the wife (applicant) sought property alteration and spousal maintenance from the husband (respondent) in the National Arbitration List. The arbitrator dismissed the wife's applications. The husband then sought indemnity costs exceeding $240,000, despite the wife being without financial means.

The central legal issue before Wilson J was whether to grant the husband's application for indemnity costs, and if so, to what extent, considering the wife's impecuniosity and the husband's offer of compromise.

Wilson J reasoned that while the husband was entitled to costs on an indemnity basis due to the wife's rejection of a better offer of compromise, ordering the full amount sought would be unjust given the wife's financial circumstances. The court applied the principle that costs orders, even on an indemnity basis, must be just and equitable. Consequently, the court ordered the wife to pay the husband's costs on an indemnity basis in the sum of $30,000, payable within 90 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The applicant must pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding from 18 July 2019 onwards on an indemnity basis in the sum of $30,000.

2.

The applicant must make that payment within 90 days of 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.