Holland & Holland (No 2) - [2024] FedCFamC2F 1537

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Holland & Holland (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 1537

File number: SYC 3983 of 2024

Judgment of: JUDGE BLAKE

Date of judgment: 6 November 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Application to review decision of Senior Judicial Registrar (‘SJR’) – application dismissed – application for costs made and dismissed.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 72, 117, 117(1), 117(2), 117(2A).

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Sch 1.

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Pt 14.3.

Cases cited: Prantage & Prantage (Costs) [2014] FamCA 850

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 18

Date of last submissions: 23 October 2024

Date of hearing: On the papers

Place: Melbourne

Solicitor for the Applicant: Cheryl Orr Family Law

Solicitor for the Respondent: Nolan Lawyers
ORDERS

SYC 3983 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR HOLLAND

Applicant

AND:
MS HOLLAND

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE BLAKE

DATE OF ORDER:

6 NOVEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The husband’s application for costs arising from the wife’s Application for Review dated 24 September 2024 be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE BLAKE:

On 18 October 2024, I made orders dismissing an application by the wife to review orders made by a Senior Judicial Registrar (‘SJR’) of this Court. The husband now seeks a costs order against the wife for costs incurred in respect of the hearing before the SJR (‘Registrar Hearing’), and also his costs incurred from the application to review the orders of the SJR before me (‘Review Hearing’). He seeks those costs according to the scale of costs as set out in schedule 1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). The application is opposed by the wife.
RELEVANT LAW
Applications for review of orders of Registrars fall to be determined in accordance with Part 14.3 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). The Court is required to hear an application for review…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Holland & Holland (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] FedCFamC2F 1537
Decision Date: 6 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Holland & Holland (No 2), the applicant, Mr Holland, sought to review the decision of the Senior Judicial Registrar (SJR) in relation to a family law matter. The respondent, Ms Holland, had filed an Application for Review, which led to the SJR's decision that was now under scrutiny. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) was tasked with examining the merits of the application and the subsequent costs application. The primary issue before the court was whether the SJR's decision was reviewable and, if so, whether Mr Holland was entitled to costs for the Application for Review.

The court examined the legal framework under which the SJR's decision was made and the grounds on which Mr Holland sought review. It considered the principles of judicial review and the criteria for awarding costs in family law matters. The court found that the SJR's decision was not reviewable on the grounds presented and that the Application for Review was an abuse of process. Consequently, Mr Holland's application for costs arising from Ms Holland's Application for Review was dismissed. The court also dismissed Mr Holland's application for costs associated with the review application.

Judge Blake concluded that the SJR's decision was valid and that the review application was an unwarranted challenge to the court process. The court determined that the costs application was an abuse of process and not warranted, leading to the dismissal of both the review application and the costs application. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the legal process and the consequences of misusing the court system in family law proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 3983 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MR HOLLAND

Applicant

AND:

MS HOLLAND

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE BLAKE

DATE OF ORDER:

6 NOVEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The husband’s application for costs arising from the wife’s Application for Review dated 24 September 2024 be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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.

File number:	SYC 3983 of 2024
Judgment of:	JUDGE BLAKE
Date of judgment:	6 November 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – Application to review decision of Senior Judicial Registrar (‘SJR’) – application dismissed – application for costs made and dismissed.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 72, 117, 117(1), 117(2), 117(2A). Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Sch 1. Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Pt 14.3.
Cases cited:	Prantage & Prantage (Costs) [2014] FamCA 850
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	18
Date of last submissions:	23 October 2024
Date of hearing:	On the papers
Place:	Melbourne
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Cheryl Orr Family Law
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Nolan Lawyers

SYC 3983 of 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MR HOLLAND Applicant
AND:	MS HOLLAND Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE BLAKE
DATE OF ORDER:	6 NOVEMBER 2024