Jensen and Jensen

Case

[2015] FCCA 2721

8 October 2015


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Jensen and Jensen [2015] FCCA 2721 [2015] FCCA 2721 8 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Jensen and Jensen*, heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Brisbane before Judge Cassidy, the dispute concerned the costs associated with proceedings filed on 23 July 2015 and related to an order made on 24 July 2015. The orders indicate a respondent husband and an applicant wife, with a third party also involved in the cost considerations.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of costs payable by the respondent to the third party. Specifically, the court was required to decide whether these costs should be awarded on an ordinary or indemnity basis, and to identify the specific categories of costs to be included in such an award. The court also needed to establish a process for the quantification of these costs, including the lodging of submissions by the parties.

Judge Cassidy ordered that the respondent pay the third party's costs on an indemnity basis. This comprehensive award encompassed the third party's general costs, costs incurred through Thomson Geer, expenses related to the lodging of a caveat and relevant security interests, costs associated with the application filed on 23 July 2015, and costs pertaining to any releases and discharges ordered on 24 July 2015. The court directed that these costs be either agreed between the parties or assessed. To facilitate the assessment, the applicant wife was required to file written submissions regarding any costs she sought within fourteen days, with the respondent husband to file any responsive submissions within a further fourteen days. The matter was then listed for judgment on 25 November 2015.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

  • Civil Procedure

Legal Concepts

  • Costs

  • Appeal

  • Procedural Fairness

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

4

Statutory Material Cited

3

Van Der Velde v Ng [2011] FCA 594