KARLSSON & KARLSSON

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KARLSSON & KARLSSON [2018] FCCA 3483

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – Indemnity costs – where costs ordered but not on an indemnity basis.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.79A, 117

Cases cited:

Colgate-Palmolive Company and Colgate-Palmolive Pty Limited v Cussons Pty Limited [1993] FCA 536
Kohan & Kohan (1993) FLC 92-340
Munday & Bowman (1997) FLC 92-784
Penfold & Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311

Applicant: MS KARLSSON

Respondent: MR KARLSSON

File Number: SYC 8036 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Henderson

Hearing date: 18 May 2018

Date of Last Submission: 18 May 2018

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 9 November 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Dura

Solicitors for the Applicant: Barkus Doolan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Rugendyke

Solicitors for the Respondent: Catalyst Family Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The matter is listed on 21 March 2019 at 9:30am for mention in relation to the father’s section 79A application and in relation to parenting.

2. Leave is granted to the parties to appear by telephone.

3. The father is to pay the wife’s costs in the sum of $7,400.00 plus filing fees and Counsel’s fees for the costs application only with such sum to be paid within 60 days.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYC 8036 of 2017

MS KARLSSON

Applicant

And

MR KARLSSON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by a wife for indemnity costs for an enforcement application of final property orders.

2. Mr Dura, of Counsel, represented the wife, and Mr Rugendyke of Counsel, the husband.

3. The material that I read was, as follows:

   a)Both parties’ Counsel prepared case outlines and minute of the orders their clients sought. The matter was dealt with by way of submissions.

4. The wife’s documents were:

   a)Application in a Case, filed 11 July 2017; and

   b)Affidavit, filed 16 February 2018.

5. For the husband:

   a)Application in a Case, filed 22 August 2017, an affidavit of the same date; and

   b)Affidavits of 31 August 2017 and 29 March 2018.

6. The short chronology is as follows.

7. The parties commenced cohabitation in 1997.

8. They were married in 2001.

9. They finally separated on 15 December 2015.

10. Final property orders were made in consent at [Local Court].

11. The wife received a property.

12. The husband was to receive a property at Property A. The Orders provided he was to discharge the mortgage on that property and discharge the wife’s obligation and that on so doing that property was to be his and the wife was to receive nothing upon that discharge.

13. The husband did not comply with those Orders in accordance with the timetable, and the wife commenced 79A[1] application in the Federal Circuit Court in Newcastle in December 2016, and an application in case to enforce the order. So she was covering her base there quite appropriately.

    [1] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s79A.

14. Orders were made by…