LAAKSO & MABEY

[2015] FamCAFC 67

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LAAKSO & MABEY [2015] FamCAFC 67

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application for costs incurred as a result of a discontinued application for reinstatement – Where costs were incurred unnecessarily – Costs order made.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Laakso

RESPONDENT: Mr Mabey

FILE NUMBER: NCC 1317 of 2009

APPEAL NUMBER: EA 161 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 30 April 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Ryan J

HEARING DATE: By way of written submissions

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 3 November 2014

LOWER COURT MNC: [2014] FCCA 2884

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Central Coast Family Law

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Katie Smith Solicitor

Orders

1. That Mr Mabey pay the costs of Ms Laakso in relation to his application in an appeal filed on 21 January 2015 as agreed or assessed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Laakso & Mabey has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

IN THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 161 of 2014
File Number: NCC 1317 of 2009

Ms Laakso

Applicant

And

Mr Mabey

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by Ms Laakso (“the applicant”) for her costs incurred as the respondent to an application by Mr Mabey (“the respondent”) for reinstatement of an appeal filed by him. 

2. As a consequence of the respondent’s failure to file a draft appeal index, the appeal he filed on 4 December 2014 was deemed abandoned.

3. By an application filed by the respondent on 21 January 2015 he sought reinstatement of his appeal.  His application for reinstatement was opposed by the applicant and it was listed for hearing on 26 February 2015.

4. By notice filed on 12 February 2015, the respondent discontinued his application for reinstatement.  It is in relation to that discontinued application for reinstatement that the applicant seeks her costs.

5. Directions were made in relation to this application for costs on

   
   

   23 March 2015.  Relevantly, these provided that the application be determined in chambers without an oral hearing and for the provision of written submissions.  No submissions have been received from either party and, with the deadline for the provision of submissions having passed, the application falls to be determined on the basis of the material presented in support of the application.

6. The applicant relies upon the affidavit of her solicitor filed on 30 January 2015.  The respondent did not file any material in answer to that affidavit.  Thus, it is uncontentious that the appeal concerned orders for interim costs and interim property settlement made by Judge Terry on 3 November 2014, the effect of which was that the respondent pays $125,922.18 to the applicant.

7. Otherwise, the evidence establishes that the applicant incurred costs in relation to the application for reinstatement, which because the application was discontinued, were incurred unnecessarily.  That this is so justifies a departure from the general rule that parties to proceedings conducted under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) meet their own costs. I will order accordingly.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Ryan delivered on 30 April 2015.

Associate: 

Date:  30 April 2015