Idanov & Dunstable (No 2)

[2019] FamCA 177

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

IDANOV & DUNSTABLE (NO. 2) [2019] FamCA 177

FAMILY LAW –  COSTS

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Idanov

RESPONDENT: Ms Dunstable

FILE NUMBER: MLC 7400 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 15 February 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 15 February 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Potter

THE RESPONDENT: In Person

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym  Idanov & Dunstable 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 7400 of 2014

Mr Idanov

Applicant

And

Ms Dunstable

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Upon the conclusion of contravention proceedings, the applicant husband sought costs against the respondent wife. 

2. Section 117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) provides that in proceedings under the Act, each party shall bear their own costs unless there are circumstances to justify a departure from that principle and in the circumstances that might then arise, the court must take into account the matters set out in s 117(2A) of the Act.

3. Having found that the wife breached the orders of the court and having had to return again, this is a case where I would have little hesitation in finding that the circumstances justify a departure from the principle that each party pays their own costs. 

4. However, when contemplating s 117(2A), I have little information about the financial circumstances of the parties. The husband has no property according to what he says because his capital debt exceeds his capital assets. The wife says she has no property but the husband has significant property. It is difficult to therefore make any determination when the truth of the matter will come out in the property proceedings.

5. To make an order for costs here against the wife would impact upon the children because the wife is endeavouring to support them.

6. This is a case therefore where notwithstanding the findings against the wife, it is not appropriate to make an order for costs.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 15 February 2019

Associate: 

Date:  26 March 2019