FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| KRAUTZ & KRAUTZ | [2006] FMCAfam 203 |
| CHILD SUPPORT– Security for costs – relevant considerations under s.117 of the Family Law Act 1975 – application refused. EVIDENCE – Admissibility of letter including ‘without prejudice’ offer of settlement – letter not within an exception under s.131(2)(g)(h) of the Evidence Act 1995 – letter inadmissible. |
| Evidence Act 1995, ss.131(1), 131(2)(g), 131(2)(h) Family Law Act1975, ss.117, 117(2A) Married Women’s Property Act 1882 |
| Adult Guardian & Mother’s Parents & B & Child Representative [2002] FamCA 874 Delaney J, Security for Costs (Law Book Company, Sydney, 1989) |
| Applicant: | GRAHAM ARTHUR KRAUTZ |
| Respondent: | ANN-MAREE KRAUTZ |
| File number: | MLM 3701 of 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Riethmuller FM |
| Hearing date: | 1 May 2006 |
| Date of last submission: | 1 May 2006 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 25 May 2006 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitor for the Applicant: | Mr Bacon |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Manby & Scott Lawyers |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | In person |
ORDERS
The application filed on 20 April 2006 be dismissed.
There be no order as to costs.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLM 3701 of 2005
| GRAHAM ARTHUR KRAUTZ |
Applicant
And
| ANN-MAREE KRAUTZ |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant in this case seeks a security for costs order against the respondent in the following terms:
1.The respondent pay the applicant’s solicitors the sum of $4000.00 as security for costs in respect of the application listed for hearing on 8 June 2006 within 14 days.
2.In the event that the respondent fails to comply with order 1 hereof the respondent’s response herein be struck out and summary judgment entered for the applicant pursuant to rule 13.07 FMCR.
The application was filed on 28 April 2005. The application is for final orders in the following terms:
1.The Child Support Agreement entered into between the parties on 6 December 2000, registered with the Child Support Agency on 31 January 2001 and filed herewith (“the Agreement”) be deemed registered in this Court pursuant to the Federal Magistrates’ Court Rules.
2.Pursuant to s.98 Child Support Assessment Act, the Agreement be hereby discharged with effect from…
Continue reading KRAUTZ & KRAUTZ
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- KRAUTZ & KRAUTZ [2006] FMCAfam 203
- Case
- [2006] FMCAfam 203
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the applicants had demonstrated that the original decision contained an error of law or fact that warranted a review. This included assessing the evidence presented by both parties concerning the contributions made by each spouse and the valuation of the assets in question. The legal issues primarily revolved around the interpretation of statutory provisions related to property settlements and whether the applicants had established grounds for setting aside the prior judgment.
The court found that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the original decision contained an error warranting a review. The evidence presented did not sufficiently challenge the factual findings or the legal application made by the primary judge. The court emphasised that property settlement decisions are generally within the discretion of the primary judge and are not easily overturned on appeal or review unless clear errors are identified. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and no order was made regarding costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The application filed on 20 April 2006 be dismissed.
2.
There be no order as to costs.
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.