HODGES & MANCINI (No.2)

[2014] FCCA 1684

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HODGES & MANCINI (No.2) [2014] FCCA 1684

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Considerations regarding costs following property orders – likelihood of futility of orders.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.117(1), 117(2A)

Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha [2004] FCA 1510
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534
Stephens v Stephens [2011] FamCA 78

Applicant: MR HODGES

Respondent: MS MANCINI

File Number: CAC 414 of 2012

Judgment of: Judge Neville

Orders made on: 3 December 2013 (in Chambers)

Date of Last Submission: 18 December 2013

Delivered at: Canberra

Reasons provided on: 4 July 2014

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Solicitors for the Applicant: Mazengarb Family Lawyers (from 28 August 2013 until 15 January 2014) otherwise de Facto Husband self-represented

Counsel for the Respondent:

Solicitors for the Respondent: Farrar Gesini Dunn

THE COURT NOTES THAT

(a) his Honour Judge Neville delivered an ex tempore judgment in this matter on 3 July 2013;

(b) on 31 July 2013 the Respondent (who is the Applicant in this current Application) filed an Appeal against orders made as part of that judgment;

(c) on 22 August 2013 the Respondent filed an Application in a Case to stay the orders made on 3 July 2013;

(d) written reasons for his Honour’s orders were provided to the parties on 23 September 2013 and

(e) the Appeal Registry wrote to the parties on 29 October 2013 and advised that as no Draft Appeal Index was received by 21 October 2013, the Appeal was taken to be abandoned as of the close of business 21 October 2013, accordingly

THE COURT ORDERS THAT

1. The Application in a Case filed by the Respondent on 22 August 2013 be dismissed.

2. Each party shall pay their own costs of and incidental to the Application in a Case.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Hodges & Mancini (No.2) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT CANBERRA

CAC 414 of 2012

MR HODGES

Applicant

And

MS MANCINI

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. On 3^rd July 2013, the Court delivered an extensive ex tempore judgment, which resulted in orders as largely sought by the Respondent de facto Wife.  Those reasons were subsequently reduced to writing and provided to the parties in September 2013.

2. The reasons note, among other things, the long relationship, the de facto Wife’s poor health, the negative asset pool of the parties, and that the only asset available was the Husband’s superannuation.

3. On 22^nd August 2013, the de facto Husband filed an Application in a Case in which he sought an order to stay the orders made by this Court on 3^rd July.  The only ground for the stay was that he had lodged an appeal.  At the time of filing the Application, as he had been during the hearing in July, the de facto Husband was self-represented.

4. Written submissions were filed by lawyers acting for both parties,…