Kay and Kay and Anor

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KAY & KAY & ANOR [2017] FCCA 515

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Costs application consequent on property orders – where Respondent Husband does not participate in present application – where a third party involved.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, s.117

Applicant: MS KAY

First Respondent: MR KAY

Second Respondent: MR V KAY

File Number: WOC 923 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Altobelli

Hearing date: Written submissions

Date of Last Submission: 3 February 2017

Delivered at: Hobart

Delivered on: 8 March 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Campton

Solicitors for the Applicant: Kells The Lawyers

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the First Respondent.

Counsel for the Second Respondent: Ms Humphreys

Solicitors for the Second Respondent: Hansons Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The Respondent Husband pay the costs of the Applicant Wife on an indemnity basis and fixed at a sum of $130,675, with such sum to be paid within one month of the date of these Orders.

2. The Second Respondent’s application for costs filed 22 December 2016 is dismissed. 

3. The First Respondent’s Application for costs against the Second Respondent is dismissed. 

4. Each party pay and bear their own costs of this application.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT WOLLONGONG

WOC 923 of 2013

MS KAY

Applicant

And

MR KAY

First Respondent

MR V KAY

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. On 22 July 2016, shortly before his retirement, His Honour Judge Scarlett delivered reasons for judgment in a property dispute between the Applicant Wife, the First Respondent Husband and the Second Respondent, who is the son of the parties. His Honour heard the matter on 2 April 2015 and 1 September 2015. The date of the last submissions was 15 September 2015 and his reasons for judgment were published as [2016] FCCA 1841.

2. I had previously been involved in the matter and, indeed, adjudicated on an earlier interlocutory application. My reasons for judgment were delivered on 5 December 2014 and published as [2014] FCCA 2797. The reasons for judgment that I now provide relate to the costs application consequent on His Honour’s judgment from last year. The matter proceeded by way of written submissions. The Applicant’s submissions as to costs were, in fact, drafted by her Senior Counsel. This document refers to the documents that are relied on in support of the costs application and the lengthy, indeed, comprehensive submissions in relation to costs.

3. No submissions have been made by the First Respondent Husband and, indeed, he has not participated in the costs proceedings.  The Second Respondent son provided his written submissions as to costs.  Those submissions looked like they were drafted by his Counsel, Ms Humphreys.  Again, this document refers to the documents relied on in support of the costs application, as well as detailed submissions.  It follows that insofar as the…