JOHNSTON & PRITCHARD

[2015] FCCA 1095

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JOHNSTON & PRITCHARD [2015] FCCA 1095

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Costs – quantum of costs – where substantive applicant wholly unsuccessful in proceedings – where previous applications dismissed – whether indemnity costs appropriate.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.117, 118

Cases cited:
Bixby & Bixby [2015] FCCA 816
Colgate Palmolive Co. v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 536; (1993) 46 FCR 225; 118 ALR 248
Johnston & Pritchard [2010] FMCAfam 942
Johnston & Pritchard [2011] FMCAfam 1082
Johnston & Pritchard [2013] FCCA 2418
Johnston & Pritchard [2014] FCCA 1996
In the Marriage of Kohan (1992) 16 Fam LR 245; (1993) FLC 92-340
Munday & Bowman (1997) FLC 92-784
Prantage & Prantage [2013] FamCAFC 105; (2013) 49 Fam LR 197; FLC 93-544
Rice & Asplund (1978) 6 Fam LR 570; (1979) FLC 90-725
Tetijo Holdings Pty Ltd v Keeprite Australia Pty Ltd [1991] FCA 187

Applicant: MS JOHNSTON

Respondent: MR PRITCHARD

File Number: SYC 4591 of 2008

Judgment of: Judge Scarlett

Hearing date: In Chambers

Date of Last Submission: 31 October 2014

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 30 April 2015

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: In person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Paltos Milevski  Family Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The Applicant Mother is to pay the costs of the Respondent Father of the Mother’s Initiating Application filed on 31 January 2014 fixed in the sum of $19,357.60.

2. The Applicant Mother is to pay the costs of the Respondent Father for the preparation of submissions and supporting affidavit fixed in the sum of $2,200.00.

3. The Applicant Mother is allowed six (6) months to pay.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Johnston & Pritchard is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYC 4591 of 2008

MS JOHNSTON

Applicant

And

MR PRITCHARD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

1. This is an application by the successful Respondent for a fixed amount of costs to be set arising out of a decision by Judge Coker in the substantive proceedings between the parties.

2. On 23 July 2014 His Honour handed down a decision in respect of an application by the mother to reopen parenting proceedings between the parties in which the mother’s application was dismissed with costs (Johnston & Pritchard[1]). The Orders made by His Honour were:

   [1] [2014] FCCA 1996

   (1)     That the Mother’s Initiating Application filed 31 January 2014 be dismissed.

   (2)     That the Mother be restrained from initiating proceedings in relation to the parenting of the child X born (omitted) 2006, without leave of this Court previously given.

   (3)     That the Mother pay the Father’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings as may be agreed between the parties and, failing agreement, as follows:

   (a)     Within 28 days of there being an indication that agreement cannot be reached that submissions on the quantum of costs be filed by the Father and served on the Mother;

   (b)     The Mother file and serve submissions in…