Huffman and Gorman - [2017] FamCA 278

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HUFFMAN & GORMAN

[2017] FamCA 278

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the husband seeks orders that the wife pay his costs of substantive parenting and property proceedings on an indemnity basis – Where the final orders were appealed – Where the wife was not wholly unsuccessful in her appeal of parenting orders – Where final property orders were not disturbed on appeal – Where the wife was substantially unsuccessful in regards to property orders – Where the current financial circumstances of each party are unclear – Where each party alleges the other engaged in conduct that added to the time and cost of proceedings – Where there are no exceptional circumstances to justify indemnity costs – Where circumstances do not justify an order for the wife to pay the husband’s costs in regard to parenting proceedings – Where circumstances justify an order for the wife to pay the husband’s costs in regards to property proceedings as agreed or assessed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)s 117

Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Limited (1993) 46 FCR 225
Gorman & Huffman (No2) [2015] FamCA 411
Hawkins & Roe [2012] FamCAFC 77
Huffman & Gorman [2015] FamCA 317
Joyce & Fante [2013] FamCAFC 141

PBF as Child Representative for AF (Legal Aid Commissioner of Tasmania) & TRF & LKL (2005) 33 Fam LR 123

Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns & Ors & Yunghanns (2000) FLC 93-029

APPLICANT:

Mr Huffman

RESPONDENT:

Ms Gorman

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid Commission

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

3882

2011

DATE DELIVERED:

5 May 2017

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Hannam J

HEARING DATE:

7 February 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Maddox

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Caldwell Martin Cox

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

No Appearance

Orders

(1)That the wife pay the husband’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings so far as they related to orders sought for property settlement as agreed between the parties or assessed.

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 Huffman & Gorman 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: PAC 3882 of 2011

Mr Huffman

Applicant

And

Ms Gorman

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This is an application in protracted parenting and property proceedings for orders that the wife pay the husband’s costs.
The husband seeks that the wife pay his costs in the substantive proceedings on an indemnity basis and his costs in respect of a stay application brought by the wife following…

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.

Continue reading Huffman and Gorman

Details

AGLC: Huffman and Gorman [2017] FamCA 278
Case: [2017] FamCA 278
Decision Date: 5 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Huffman and Gorman*, heard by Hannam J, the dispute concerned costs orders following proceedings for property settlement. The specific nature of the underlying property settlement dispute is not detailed, but the outcome indicates a disagreement regarding the allocation of costs.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of which party should bear the costs associated with the property settlement proceedings. This involved considering the conduct of the parties and the overall outcome of the litigation in relation to the property settlement orders sought.

Hannam J ordered that the wife pay the husband’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings, specifically in relation to the property settlement orders. This suggests that the court found in favour of the husband on the costs aspect of the property settlement, or that the parties had reached an agreement on this specific point which the court was formalising. The order was subject to the formal entry of the court's records.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) That the wife pay the husband’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings so far as they related to orders sought for property settlement as agreed between the parties or assessed.

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.