Jillet & Jillet (No 2) - [2019] FamCA 242

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JILLET & JILLET (NO. 2)

[2019] FamCA 242

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where both parties seek orders for costs of primary proceedings –– Where consideration of applicable principles – Consideration of offers of settlement – Where no circumstances justifying departure from general rule – Where applications for costs dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where application for costs of “slip rule” application – Where “slip rule” application made as a consequence of mathematical error in primary judgment – Where no circumstance justifying departure from general rule – Where application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – SINGLE EXPERT FEES – Where application for order as to payment of Single Expert fees – Where no circumstance justifying departure from obligation for parties to pay equally – Where order for wife to reimburse husband one half of expert fees paid by him.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 15.47, 19.18

Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 135 ALR 160
Browne & Green (2002) FLC 93–115
Collins & Collins (1985) FLC 91-603
Greedy & Greedy (1982) FLC 91-250
Hawkins & Roe [2012] FamCAFC 77
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2007] NSWSC 23
Jillett & Jillett [2018] FamCA 913
Jillett & Jillett [2019] FamCA 48
Luadaka & Luadaka (1998) FLC 92-830
Parke & the Estate of the Late A Parke (2016) FLC 93-748
Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311
Pennisi & Pennisi (1997) FLC 92-774
Robinson and Higginbotham (1991) FLC 92-209

APPLICANT:

Ms Jillet

RESPONDENT:

Mr Jillet

FILE NUMBER:

DUC

356

2015

DATE DELIVERED:

18 April 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Foster J

HEARING DATE:

By way of written submissions last received on 12 March 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Wong

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Campbell Paton & Taylor

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Barnett

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Farrar Gesini Dunn

Orders

That the wife pay to the husband or as he may direct in writing $2,200.00 within one month from the date of this order.
That otherwise all applications be dismissed.

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 Jillett & Jillett 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 PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: DUC 356 of 2015

Ms Jillet

Applicant

And

Mr Jillet

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

There are two discrete applications for determination arising from final property orders dated 9 November 2018 (as amended under the slip rule).
On 9…

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 Jillet & Jillet (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Jillet & Jillet (No 2) [2019] FamCA 242
Case: [2019] FamCA 242
Decision Date: 18 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Jillet & Jillet (No 2)*, Foster J considered applications for costs arising from primary proceedings and a subsequent "slip rule" application, as well as an application concerning the payment of a single expert's fees. Both parties sought orders for the costs of the primary proceedings.

The court was required to determine whether there were any circumstances justifying a departure from the general rule regarding costs in the primary proceedings and the "slip rule" application. Additionally, the court had to consider the payment of the single expert's fees and whether the parties should be ordered to pay them equally.

Regarding the primary proceedings and the "slip rule" application, Foster J found no circumstances that justified departing from the general rule that each party bears their own costs. Consequently, both applications for costs were dismissed. In relation to the single expert's fees, the court determined that there were no circumstances justifying a departure from the obligation for parties to pay such fees equally. The wife was ordered to reimburse the husband one half of the expert fees he had paid.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the wife pay to the husband or as he may direct in writing $2,200.00 within one month from the date of this order.

That otherwise all applications be dismissed.

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.