Kedis and Kedis (No.3)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KEDIS & KEDIS (No.3) [2018] FCCA 237

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Costs – Respondent mother seeks costs after father discontinued parenting proceedings – matter has lengthy history – previous proceedings – father does not address issues raised in 2013 judgment after final hearing – father’s non-compliance.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.117(1), 117(2A)
Federal Circuit Court Rules2001, sch.1

Cases cited:

Kedis & Kedis [2014] FamCAFC 119

Kedis & Kedis [2013] FCCA 1959
Kedis & Kedis [2015] FCCA 3215
In the Marriage of Kohan and Kohan (1993) FLC 105
Prantage v Prantage [2013] FamCAFC 105

Applicant: MR KEDIS

Respondent: MS KEDIS

File Number: MLC 2787 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Harland

Hearing date: By way of written submissions

Date of Last Submission: 12 January 2018

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 5 February 2018

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: Self-represented

Solicitors for the Respondent: Jeanne Gorman

ORDERS

1. That within 90 days the applicant pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of $34,883.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Kedis & Kedis (No.3) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 2787 of 2013

MR KEDIS

Applicant

And

MS KEDIS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The mother makes an application for costs after the with respect to the father’s application for parenting orders. The father filed a notice of discontinuance on 17 June 2017.

2. These proceedings have a lengthy history. Judge Hartnett delivered judgment on 29 November 2013 with respect to property and parenting issues. 

3. The father appealed Judge Hartnett’s proceedings. In Kedis & Kedis [2014] FamCAFC 119, Justice Strickland struck out the husband’s appeal as his notice of appeal did not contain any proper grounds of appeal. The father had been given an adjournment to enable him to file an amended notice of appeal but he did not do so.

4. I will not set out the history of the previous proceedings in detail. They are encapsulated in the two judgments by Judge Hartnett.[1]

   [1] See, Kedis & Kedis [2013] FCCA 1959; Kedis & Kedis [2015] FCCA 3215.

5. It is important to note that the orders Judge Hartnett made on 29 November 2013 provided for the father to spend time with the children on alternate weekends for two hours at the Berry Street Contact Centre with the husband to be responsible for the costs. He was also ordered to attend a parenting orders program and a Men’s Behavioural Change program with the ‘heavy metal group program’.

6. Judge Hartnett also made a notation that if the father completed the courses and spent at least 24 periods of supervised time with the children and obtained a report from Berry Street Contact Centre he will be at liberty to make an application with respect to spending time with the children and the conditions with respect to spending that time.

7. Importantly, Judge Hartnett made findings that the father had subjected the mother…