Kartal & Dutsanee

Case [2016] FamCA 1158

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KARTAL & DUTSANEE [2016] FamCA 1158
FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application by the husband for a dollar for dollar costs order – Where the costs power is a broad one – Where it is in the interests of justice that the parties each have access to legal representation in the proceedings – Where it is appropriate to make a dollar for dollar costs order in favour of the husband for future costs only.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117(2), 117(2A)
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2005) 227 CLR 57
Elias & Elias (1977) FLC 90-267
Gould and Gould [1994] FamCA 75
Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692
Moroni & Moroni (2016) FamCA 664
Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538
Niu & Zhin [2015] FamCA 599
Paris King Investments Pty Ltd v Rayhill [2016] NSWSC 578
Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311
Poletti and Poletti (1990) 15 Fam LR 794
Strahan & Strahan (Interim property orders) (2011) FLC 93-466
Zschokke & Zschokke (1996) FLC 92-693
APPLICANT: Mr Kartal
RESPONDENT: Ms Dutsanee
FILE NUMBER: SYC 1955 of 2014
DATE DELIVERED: 16 December 2016
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
PLACE HEARD: Sydney
JUDGMENT OF: Loughnan J
HEARING DATE: 16 December 2016

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Givney
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: G & D Lawyers
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Campton SC
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mills Oakley Lawyers

Orders

  1. An order be made in terms of paragraph 11 of the Amended Application in a Case filed 25 November 2016, as set out hereunder:

    11.    Within 7 days of any payment by or on behalf of the wife in relation to her solicitor’s fees, including all expenses in association with the preparation of her case, the wife pay or cause to be paid the same amount of money to the solicitors for the husband

  2. That order does not apply to any account or invoice for profit costs or disbursements that relates to work or payments that have been made prior to the making of this order.

  3. Otherwise the Amended Application in a Case filed 25 November 2016 and the wife’s Response filed 14 November 2016 are dismissed.

  4. The question of the costs of the parties of and incidental to these proceedings are reserved.

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 Kartal & Dutsanee 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 SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER:  SYC1955 of 2014

Mr Kartal

Applicant

And

Ms Dutsanee

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. These are…

Continue reading Kartal & Dutsanee

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kartal & Dutsanee [2016] FamCA 1158
Case
[2016] FamCA 1158
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this matter were the husband and wife, who brought proceedings before Loughnan J. The dispute concerned the wife's obligation to contribute to the husband's legal costs, specifically in relation to her own legal fees and expenses. The wife had filed an Amended Application in a Case and a Response, while the husband sought orders regarding the payment of his solicitor's fees.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the wife should be ordered to pay an amount equal to any payments she made towards her own legal fees and expenses to the husband's solicitors. The court was also required to determine the scope of any such order, particularly whether it should apply to costs incurred prior to the making of the order.

Loughnan J made an order requiring the wife to pay to the husband's solicitors the same amount of money as she paid for her own solicitor's fees and associated expenses, within seven days of such payment. This order was specifically limited to exclude any accounts or invoices for profit costs or disbursements relating to work or payments made before the date of the order. The court further ordered that the wife's Amended Application in a Case and her Response be dismissed, with the question of the parties' costs being reserved.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

An order be made in terms of paragraph 11 of the Amended Application in a Case filed 25 November 2016, as set out hereunder:

11. Within 7 days of any payment by or on behalf of the wife in relation to her solicitor’s fees, including all expenses in association with the preparation of her case, the wife pay or cause to be paid the same amount of money to the solicitors for the husband

2.

That order does not apply to any account or invoice for profit costs or disbursements that relates to work or payments that have been made prior to the making of this order.

3.

Otherwise the Amended Application in a Case filed 25 November 2016 and the wife’s Response filed 14 November 2016 are dismissed.

4.

The question of the costs of the parties of and incidental to these proceedings are reserved.

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.