Knill and Beckett

[2018] FamCA 212

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KNILL & BECKETT [2018] FamCA 212

FAMILY LAW – COSTS

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 15.55, 15.56

Quickley v Pelissier [2016] FamCAFC 124

APPLICANT: Mr Knill

RESPONDENT: Ms Beckett

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mrs A Evans

FILE NUMBER: CAC 712 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 6 April 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra

PLACE HEARD: Canberra

JUDGMENT OF: Gill J

HEARING DATE: In Chambers

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Howard

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Neilan Stramandinoli Family Law

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Phelps Reid Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Evans Family Lawyers

Orders

1. The mother shall pay the costs of the father in relation to her application for leave to adduce evidence from Dr K as agreed, or failing agreement, as assessed, within fourteen days of the agreement or assessment.

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 Knill & Beckett 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 CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: CAC 712  of 2016

Mr Knill

Applicant

And

Ms Beckett

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant father seeks costs, in particular indemnity costs, following the refusal of leave for the mother to rely upon an affidavit and report prepared by Dr K (see judgment and reasons delivered on 15 December 2017 refusing leave).  The refusal of leave centred primarily on there being a lack of significant disparity between the evidence of Dr K regarding the mother’s mental health and the evidence of the Single Expert appointed in this matter, Dr L, regarding the mother’s mental health. 

2. Dr K previously prepared a report that was relied upon in the proceedings between the parties in the Federal Circuit Court.  An application for leave was foreshadowed by the respondent mother on 16 December 2016 and again foreshadowed on 25 May 2017.  On those two occasions orders and notations in relation to the issue of leave were made as follows:

   Orders dated 16 December 2016

   IT IS NOTED THAT

   5.The mother will seek to rely upon evidence from [Dr K], psychiatrist.

   6.The mother will need to obtain leave to rely upon [Dr K’s] evidence, such leave to be sought following the release of Dr L’s report.

   …

   15.In addition to dealing with the s 128 certificate the question of leave, if sought, in relation to [Dr K] ought to be dealt with.

   Orders dated 25 May 2017

   IT IS NOTED THAT

   7.The applicant father no longer presses his application for a s 128 certificate. 

   8.The…