Kain and Kain & Ors (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KAIN & KAIN AND ORS (NO 2) [2020] FamCA 747
FAMILY LAW – COSTS – contested interlocutory injunction application and contested disjoinder application – injunction ordered to preserve the status quo – valid points raised by all parties that need to be determined at trial – by the making of the injunction it could not be said that any party has been wholly unsuccessful – that must await trial – s 117(2) enlivened – consideration of elements of s 117(2A) – costs order made reserving all parties’ costs.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 117(i), 117(2) and 117 (2A)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) ch 13

Cachia & Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403

In the Marriage ofJensen (1982) 8 Fam LR 594
In the Marriage of Wilson (1989) 13 Fam LR 205
Kain & Kain and Ors [2020] FamCA 650

Knight v F.P. Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534

Panwar & Panwar and Anor (No 2) [2020] FamCA 724
Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311

Re JJT; ex parte Victoria Legal Aid (1998) 195 CLR 184
APPLICANT: Ms Kain
FIRST RESPONDENT: Mr Kain
SECOND RESPONDENT: Mr B Kain
THIRD RESPONDENT: Mr C Kain
FOURTH RESPONDENT: Mr D Kain
FIFTH RESPONDENT: The Proper Officer, E Pty Ltd
SIXTH RESPONDENT: The Proper Officer, F Pty Ltd
FILE NUMBER: MLC 13891 of 2018
DATE DELIVERED: 9 September 2020
PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne
PLACE HEARD: Melbourne
JUDGMENT OF: Wilson J
DATE OF LAST SUBMISSION: 4 September 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr T. D.O.J. North SC with Mr T. Puckey
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Westminster Lawyers Pty Ltd
COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: Mr M. Bartfeld QC with Ms H. Renwick
SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: Lander And Rogers
COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT: Mr D. Brown QC with Mr D. Matta
SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT: Kalus Kenny Intelex
COUNSEL FOR THE THIRD RESPONDENT: Mr D. Brown QC with Mr D. Matta
SOLICITOR FOR THE THIRD RESPONDENT: Kalus Kenny Intelex
COUNSEL FOR THE FOURTH RESPONDENT: Mr D. Brown QC with Mr D. Matta
SOLICITOR FOR THE FOURTH RESPONDENT: Kalus Kenny Intelex
COUNSEL FOR THE FIFTH RESPONDENT: Mr D. Brown QC with Mr D. Matta
SOLICITOR FOR THE FIFTH RESPONDENT: Kalus Kenny Intelex
COUNSEL FOR THE SIXTH RESPONDENT: Mr D. Brown QC with Mr D. Matta
SOLICITOR FOR THE SIXTH RESPONDENT: Kalus Kenny Intelex

Orders

  1. I reserve all parties’ costs of and incidental to the wife’s application filed on 12 May 2020.

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 Kain & Kain 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…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kain and Kain & Ors (No 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2020] FamCA 747
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Kain and Kain & Ors (No 2)*, the Honourable Justice Wilson of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application made by the wife concerning costs. The specific nature of the dispute leading to this costs application is not detailed in the provided text, beyond it being related to the wife's application filed on 12 May 2020.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of how the costs associated with the wife's application filed on 12 May 2020 should be handled. The court was required to decide whether to reserve these costs, and if so, for what period or under what conditions.

Justice Wilson reserved all parties’ costs of and incidental to the wife’s application filed on 12 May 2020. This means that the final decision on who pays these costs, and in what proportion, has not yet been made and will be determined at a later stage. The court noted that the precise form of this order was subject to the official entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

I reserve all parties’ costs of and incidental to the wife’s application filed on 12 May 2020.

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.