FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Jun & Genyu (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 1549
File number(s): MLC 9353 of 2021 Judgment of: JUDGE BOYMAL Date of judgment: 6 December 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Costs – husband and second respondent seek costs against the wife – wife concedes that there are circumstances that justify costs orders be made – wife seeks that no orders for costs be made – orders for wife to pay costs of the husband and second respondent Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Family Law) Rules 2021 r 12.08, Schedule 1
Cases cited: Browne v Green (2002) FLC 93-115
Harris & Harris [1987] FamCA 7
I and I (No 2) (1995) FLC 92-625
In the Marriage of Murrayand Murray (1990) FLC 92-173
Kooee Communications Pty Ltd v Primus Telecommunications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 85
Latoudis v Casey [1990] HCA 59
Lenova & Lenova (Costs) [2011] FamCAFC 141
Medlon & Medlon (No. 6) (Indemnity costs) (2015) FLC 93-664
PBF as Child Representative for AF (Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania) & TRF & LKL [2005] FamCA 158
Pennisi v Pennisi (1997) FamCA 39
Robinson and Higginbotham [1991] FamCA 4
Wiedman & Page (Costs) [2014] FamCA 173
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 80 Date of last submission/s: 22 June 2023 Place: Melbourne Solicitor for the Applicant: Robinson Gill Solicitor for the First Respondent: Zenith Lawyers and Consultants Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Oakfair Lawyers ORDERS
MLC 9353 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR JUN
Applicant
AND: MS GENYU
First Respondent
MS HENG
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE BOYMAL
DATE OF ORDER:
6 DECEMBER 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Within 60 days of the date of these orders the first respondent wife pay the costs of the applicant husband fixed in the sum of $7,075.00.
2.Within 60 days of the date of these orders the first respondent wife pay the costs of the second respondent fixed in the sum of $7,075.00.
3.The applications for costs by the applicant husband and second respondent be otherwise dismissed.
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 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR…
Continue reading Jun & Genyu (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Jun & Genyu (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 1549
- Case
- [2023] FedCFamC2F 1549
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide whether to make an order for Ms Genyu to pay the costs of the proceedings to Mr Jun and Ms Heng. The key issue was whether the circumstances of the case justified an order for costs against Ms Genyu and, if so, the amount of those costs. The court needed to balance Ms Genyu’s concession that costs were justified against her argument for no order to be made, considering the overall conduct of the parties and the principles of fairness.
Judge Boymal found that Ms Genyu had conceded that there were circumstances justifying costs orders. Despite this concession, the judge considered the arguments presented by Ms Genyu and the overall fairness of the situation. The judge concluded that the circumstances of the case warranted an order for costs, and the amounts claimed by Mr Jun and Ms Heng were reasonable. The judge ordered Ms Genyu to pay $7,075.00 to each of the applicants within 60 days of the order. The applications for costs by Mr Jun and Ms Heng were otherwise dismissed.
The court's orders required Ms Genyu to pay the specified costs to Mr Jun and Ms Heng within 60 days. The form of the order was subject to entry in the court’s records, and the reasons for judgment could be reviewed for minor errors or to record variations to the order.
Orders
Orders of the court
MLC 9353 of 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:
MR JUN
Applicant
AND:
MS GENYU
First Respondent
MS HENG
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE BOYMAL
DATE OF ORDER:
6 DECEMBER 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Within 60 days of the date of these orders the first respondent wife pay the costs of the applicant husband fixed in the sum of $7,075.00.
2. Within 60 days of the date of these orders the first respondent wife pay the costs of the second respondent fixed in the sum of $7,075.00.
3. The applications for costs by the applicant husband and second respondent be otherwise dismissed.
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 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
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.