Huda and Huda and Anor (Costs) - [2017] FamCAFC 104

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HUDA & HUDA AND ANOR (COSTS)

[2017] FamCAFC 104

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the wife filed an application in an appeal to restrain the husband’s solicitors – Where that application was dismissed – Where orders were made for each of the parties to file submissions in relation to costs – Where the husband sought costs against the wife and/or her solicitors on an indemnity basis – Where the husband did not file a Costs Agreement in accordance with the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – Where the wife’s initial application to restrain the solicitors, although unsuccessful, was not unreasonable – Where the financial circumstances of the wife are such that an order for costs would not be appropriate – Whether the wife’s solicitors acted improperly or unreasonably – Where the conduct of the solicitors was not such to warrant a costs order – Application for costs is dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 19.08, 19.10

Cassidy v Murray (1995) FLC 92-633
Huda & Huda and Anor [2017] FamCAFC 17
Kohan & Kohan (1993) FLC 92-340
McMillan and McMillan (2000) FLC 93-048
Orchard v South Easter Electricity Board [1987] 1 All ER 95
Prantage & Prantage (2013) FLC 93-544
Ridehalgh v Horesfield [1994] 3 ALL ER 848
Z (a Solicitor) & Limousin (2010) FLC 93-433

APPLICANT:

Ms Huda

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Mr Huda

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Mr Laham

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

1238

2015

APPEAL NUMBER:

2016

DATE DELIVERED:

2 June 2017

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

May J

HEARING DATE:

By way of written submissions

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

17 June 2016

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2016] FCCA 1256

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Shoebridge

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Firm X

COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT:

Mr Hackett

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Firm Y

FOR SECOND RESPONDENT:

No appearance

Orders

The application for costs is dismissed.
There be no order as to costs.

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 Huda & Huda and Anor 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).

IN THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

Appeal Number: NA47 of 2016 and NA49 of 2016
File Number: BRC 1238 of 2015

Ms Huda

Applicant

And

Mr Huda

First Respondent

And

Mr Laham

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Background

Final property orders were made by Judge Vasta…

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 Huda and Huda and Anor (Costs) 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: [2017] FamCAFC 104
Decision Date: 2 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Huda and Huda and Anor, the plaintiffs sought to recover costs associated with a legal dispute. The case was presided over by the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the plaintiffs, Huda and Huda and Anor, seeking an order for costs against the defendant. The primary focus of the case was to determine the circumstances under which the plaintiffs were entitled to recover costs from the defendant.

The central legal issue revolved around the conditions under which costs may be awarded to the plaintiffs. Specifically, the court had to assess the merits of the plaintiffs’ application for costs and decide whether the defendant should bear the financial burden of the legal proceedings. The court considered various factors, including the nature of the dispute, the conduct of the parties, and the outcome of the litigation.

In its reasoning, the court noted that the plaintiffs’ application for costs was not substantiated on the basis of the evidence and arguments presented. The court found that the plaintiffs did not meet the threshold for cost recovery, as the application failed to demonstrate the necessary grounds for an award of costs. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for costs and made no order as to the costs, thereby concluding that the defendant would not be liable for the plaintiffs’ legal expenses. The form of the order was subject to formal entry in the court's records.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for costs is dismissed.

There be no order as to costs.

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.