Hillier and Olly

[2017] FamCA 2

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HILLIER & OLLY [2017] FamCA 2

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the mother makes an application for indemnity costs – Where the mother submits that the conduct of the father caused her to incur additional costs – application dismissed

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Hillier

RESPONDENT: Mr Olly

FILE NUMBER: BRC 2234 of 2015

DATE DELIVERED: 11 January 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Chambers

JUDGMENT OF: Forrest J

HEARING DATE: Last Submissions received 9 December 2016

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Bunning

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Pullos Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Galloway

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Jones Mitchell

Orders

1. That the mother’s application that the father pay her costs of and incidental to the proceedings to this point in time, is dismissed.

2. That the balance of funds held in the mother’s solicitors’ trust account for the father pursuant to Orders made by Justice  Forrest on 11 November 2016, be paid to the father by payment to the trust account of his solicitors, Jones Mitchell Lawyers.

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 Hillier & Olly 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

FILE NUMBER: BRC 2234 of 2015

Ms Hillier

Applicant

And

Mr Olly

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 11 November, 2016, I made Orders and delivered written reasons in parenting and property adjustment proceedings between the parties in this matter. Notably, in the parenting proceedings I did not make final orders but rather interim orders that provided for a regime of family therapy for the father before further consideration is given to the child starting to spend time with the father, firstly, on a supervised basis, then, potentially, on an unsupervised basis.

2. The mother has now pressed an application that the father be ordered to pay her costs of and incidental to the proceedings fixed in the sum of $136,736.86. On the mother’s case, that amount accords with an indemnity costs order, it being equal to the total of her costs and outlays incurred in connection with all those parts of the proceedings not already dealt with by a previous costs order made in her favour.

3. The mother’s costs and outlays were charged pursuant to a costs agreement between her and her solicitors. The evidence is that the amount incurred is around twice as much as charges made pursuant to the Court approved scale of costs would amount to. Of course, I hasten to…