Hawkins and Roe (No 2)

[2010] FamCA 1196

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HAWKINS & ROE (NO. 2) [2010] FamCA 1196

FAMILY LAW – COSTS

APPLICANT: Ms Roe

RESPONDENT: Mr Hawkins

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: BRC 6502 Of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 6 December 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J

HEARING DATE: 6 December 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Smith of Counsel

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Richard Gray & Associates

FOR THE RESPONDENT: The Respondent appeared on his own behalf

Orders

1. The Respondent Husband pay to the Applicant Wife the sum of $15,000.00 as and by way of costs such payment to be made over a period of 12 months by monthly payments.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Hawkins & Roe is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 6502 of 2008

MS ROE

Applicant

And

MR HAWKINS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application on the part of Ms Roe for an order for costs against the respondent, Mr Hawkins, for a trial which took place over a certain number of days, in which it is alleged that the wife is indebted to her solicitors, both before me and her present solicitors to the amount of approximately $33,000.  See the affidavit of Richard Andrew Gray of 14 October 2010, as well as the submissions of Smith of counsel who appears on behalf of the applicant mother, at paragraph 33 thereof.  The mother has put before me evidence to show that she is not in a financially strong situation at all.  She has the responsibility of the children, and notwithstanding the fact she receives an amount of approximately $18,000 per year by way of child support, she is not, as I have said, in a very financially strong position at all.

2. On the contrary, it is alleged by the applicant mother through her counsel that the father, the respondent, is capable of paying her costs.  She points to the fact, particularly, that he is in receipt of a considerable income, something like 100 or 90-odd thousand dollars per year;  that he is in receipt of a car and a telephone;  that he does pay, admittedly, eighteen and a half thousand or thereabouts by way of child support, but that he is the owner of two properties, one in which he resides with his present partner – which the difficulty is the valuation in relation to that – and another investment property which the valuations of Mr G on the wife’s part and Ray White on the respondent father’s part are about equal at about 430,000. 

3. The difficulty is that the property in which he resides, there is a vast difference, which is quite rare, in valuation.  The valuer put forward by the applicant mother in a full valuation, Mr G, estimates that the property is worth around about 820 to 900, whereas the respondent’s valuer – which does not appear to…