Krupin & Krupin (No 6)

[2024] FedCFamC1F 834

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Krupin & Krupin (No 6) [2024] FedCFamC1F 834

File number(s):	BRC 5459 of 2014
Judgment of:	HOWARD J
Date of judgment:	25 November 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – COSTS – where three trials have taken place – where an appeal against the orders made at the conclusion of the second trial was allowed – where at the conclusion of the third trial, one party seeks a costs order in respect of the second trial – application dismissed
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	7
Date of hearing:	25 November 2024
Place:	Brisbane
Solicitor for the applicant:	Attendance not required
Solicitor for the first respondent:	Litigant in person
Solicitor for the second respondent:	Attendance not required
Solicitor for the third respondent:	Litigant in person
Solicitor for the fourth respondent:	Attendance not required

ORDERS

BRC 5459 of 2014

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MR KRUPIN

Applicant

AND:

MS KRUPIN

First Respondent

MS ANGELOFF

Second Respondent

MS PETROV

Third Respondent

B PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	HOWARD J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 NOVEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS ON A FINAL BASIS:

1.That the Application in a Proceeding filed by the First Respondent on 18 April 2024 be dismissed.

THE COURT NOTES:

A.That both parties were assisted by Interpreters during the course of the hearing on 25 November 2024.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

HOWARD J

These reasons were delivered ex tempore on 25 November 2024 and have been settled and corrected for grammatical errors and in order to convey the precise intention of the Court.

1. The Application before the Court is a Costs Application brought by Ms Krupin. Ms Krupin was the first wife of Mr Krupin. The respondent to this Application is Ms Petrov, the second wife of Mr Krupin.

2. The parties have had longstanding litigation, which also included Mr Krupin and included Ms Krupin's mother. There was one initial trial before Judge Demack, there was another trial before Judge Young - both of those Judges were sitting in what is now known as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2). There was a third trial before me – in this Court – the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1). I delivered judgment in this matter on 9 February 2024. The Orders I made were appealed by Mr Krupin and Ms Petrov. The appeal was dismissed by the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1). But the Costs Application brought by Ms Krupin, as clarified by her today, does not in any way relate to the third trial, that is, the one conducted before me. In that third trial, Ms Krupin was in receipt of Legal Aid.

3. The Costs Application she brings seeks the amount of $28,055 (as particularised and amended verbally today, from paragraph 25 of Ms Krupin's affidavit filed 18 April 2024) and relates to the second trial which took place before Judge Young.

4. Ms Krupin submits that, pursuant to section 117(2) of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) (“the Act), it is possible to bring this Application before me. The situation is highly unusual - to say the least. My view is that an Application for Costs against Ms Petrov relating to the second trial should have been brought before the trial judge involved in that case, Judge Young. The better approach would have been to bring it before the trial judge. But as things have turned out – it is highly likely that even if such an application had been successful (before Judge Young) such an order for costs would likely have been overturned when the Full Court allowed the appeal against Judge Young’s orders.

5. If I am wrong in that regard, and if it is open to Ms Krupin to bring an Application for Costs now against Ms Petrov in respect of the second trial, the conclusion I have reached is that the Application should be dismissed in any event. There are many factors to be considered in section 117 of the Act on the hearing of a costs application. I have considered all the required matters. I note, for instance, the financial circumstances of each of the parties. Ms Krupin says her net position is $151,214 approximately. Ms Petrov says her net position is significantly in the red; her liabilities vastly outweigh her property ownership. Even if I was sceptical of the total of her liabilities (including a $600,000 debt to her mother) I am aware, because of my role in deciding the third trial, that this Court made no order in favour of Ms Petrov. Ms Petrov was completely unsuccessful. That would be a factor in favour of granting a costs order to Ms Krupin if her Application was for the third trial, but it is not; it is for the second trial (the wholly unsuccessful consideration).

6. The difficulty for Ms Krupin's application is the financial circumstances of each of the parties - in particular Ms Petrov’s financial circumstances. I know from Ms Petrov’s Financial Statement filed in respect of this Application (and because of my conduct of the third trial) that Ms Petrov does not have assets of any substance in her own name. Ms Petrov claimed during the third trial to have access to money lent to her by her mother. But I made serious and repeated findings against Ms Petrov's credibility (and Mr Krupin's credibility). Irrespective of the findings I made at the conclusion of the third trial - nothing changes the fact that there is no evidence before the Court on the hearing of this Application that would convince me that Ms Petrov has the money to pay $28,000 for costs. I would reject the application on the financial circumstances ground – namely Ms Petrov’s lack of financial wherewithal. I also note that Ms Petrov has the full time care of two young children.

7. In conclusion - I earlier noted that the better approach would have been for Ms Krupin to bring a costs application in respect of the second trail before Judge Young – at the conclusion of that second trial. In any event – I have considered the merits of the costs application as brought by Ms Krupin. I have taken all the relevant factors into account (in particular by reference to section 117 of the Act) and I have concluded that the application should be dismissed - primarily on the financial circumstances ground.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Howard .

Associate:

Dated:       17 January 2025