Jaynes & Rundle

[2021] FamCAFC 7

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Jaynes & Rundle [2021] FamCAFC 7

Appeal from:

Rundle & Jaynes [2020] FCCA 1629

Appeal number(s):

EAA 97 of 2020

File number(s):

SYC 7123 of 2019

Judgment of:

ALDRIDGE J

Date of judgment:

5 February 2021

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the appeal was dismissed – Where the father seeks costs at scale in a fixed sum – Father’s financial circumstances stronger than the mother’s – Wholly unsuccessful – Conduct of the parties to the proceedings considered – No order as to costs.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) Sch 3, r 22.22

Division:

Appeal Division

Number of paragraphs:

12

Place:

Heard in Chambers by way of written submissions, delivered in Sydney

Counsel for the Appellant:

Self-represented litigant

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Williams & Co Solicitors

ORDERS

EAA 97 of 2020
SYC 7123 of 2019

APPEAL DIVISION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MS JAYNES

Appellant

AND:

MR RUNDLE

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	ALDRIDGE J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 FEBRUARY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.There be no order as to costs.

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 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Jaynes & Rundle has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ALDRIDGE J:

1. On 23 November 2020, I dismissed an appeal filed by Ms Jaynes (“the mother”) against orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The primary judge’s determination was that an Amended Initiating Application filed by Mr Rundle (“the father”) on 24 February 2020 should not be dismissed and should proceed to a hearing as to the reconsideration of final parenting orders made by consent on 8 February 2017.

2. On that day, I also made orders for the filing of written submissions as to costs. Both parties have now filed their written submissions. The mother’s submissions were late, but regard has been had to them. No submissions in reply were filed by the father.

3. The father seeks that the mother pay his costs of the appeal in the sum of $5,000, which is slightly less than the sum calculated in accordance with Sch 3 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) (“the Rules”). In the alternative, the father seeks that the mother pay his costs on a party and party basis as agreed or assessed or in an amount fixed by the Court.

4. In proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), each party is to bear his or her own costs of the proceedings (s…