FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SCVG & KLD | [2009] FamCAFC 56 |
| FAMILY LAW - Extension of time for service – Service of itemised costs account – Review of Registrar’s order not to extend time – Review constitutes original hearing – Where the delay is significant – Whether the failure to serve an itemised bill within 28 days of the order for costs was explained – Whether the failure to serve itemised bill was excused by the filing of a special leave application – Whether there was injustice to either of the parties in allowing the matter to proceed out of time – Whether a remedy against the solicitor is a relevant matter – Where a remedy against the solicitor does not meet the justice of the situation – Extension of time for service of itemised costs account granted |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Family Law Rules 2004 |
| Harris v Caladine (1991) 172 CLR 84 |
| APPELLANT: | KLD |
| RESPONDENT: | SCVG |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYF | 2639 | of | 2005 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | EA | 55 | of | 2006 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 6 April 2009 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | O'Ryan J |
| HEARING DATE: | 23 March 2009 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 20 November 2008 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | N/A |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: | Ms Rees |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: | Macphillamy’s |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Twigg, solicitor |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Adrian Twigg & Co, Solicitors |
Orders
1.Pursuant to Rule 1.14 of the Family Law Rules 2004 the 28 days fixed by Schedule 6 Rule 6.22 be extended.
2.It be noted that the provision by the Wife's solicitors of the Itemised Costs Account under cover of their letter dated 9 May 2008 be sufficient service for the purpose of the rules.
3.The time for the Husband to serve a Notice Disputing Costs be extended to 29 April 2009.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym
Continue reading KLD & SCVG
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- KLD & SCVG [2009] FamCAFC 56
- Case
- [2009] FamCAFC 56
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the procedural rules and the relevant circumstances of the case. The judge found that the extension of time for the husband to serve the Notice Disputing Costs was warranted due to the wife's solicitors' late service of the itemised costs account. The court also accepted that the itemised costs account provided by the wife's solicitors was sufficient for the purpose of the rules. Consequently, the judge granted the application for an extension of time and accepted the service of the itemised costs account.
In light of the above, the court ordered that the 28 days fixed by Schedule 6 Rule 6.22 be extended, and the time for the husband to serve a Notice Disputing Costs be extended to 29 April 2009. Additionally, the court noted that the provision by the wife's solicitors of the itemised costs account under cover of their letter dated 9 May 2008 was sufficient service for the purpose of the rules.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to Rule 1.14 of the Family Law Rules 2004 the 28 days fixed by Schedule 6 Rule 6.22 be extended.
2. It be noted that the provision by the Wife's solicitors of the Itemised Costs Account under cover of their letter dated 9 May 2008 be sufficient service for the purpose of the rules.
3. The time for the Husband to serve a Notice Disputing Costs be extended to 29 April 2009.
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.