Lamb and Menotti (No. 2) - [2018] FamCA 1010

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LAMB & MENOTTI (NO. 2)

[2018] FamCA 1010

FAMILY LAW – COSTS

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

Arundel Chiropractic Centre Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2001) 179 ALR 406
Harris & Dewell & Harris (No. 2) [2018] FamCAFC 180
Lamb & Menotti [2018] FamCA 278
Menotti & Lamb and Ors [2017] FamCA 918
Munday v Bowman (1997) FLC 92-784
NMFM Property Pty Ltd v Citibank Ltd(No 2) (2001) 109 FCR 77
Penfold v Penfold [1980] HCA 4
Prantage & Prantage [2013] FamCAFC 105,(2013) FLC 93-544,(2013) 49 Fam LR 197

APPLICANT:

Mr Lamb

RESPONDENT:

Ms Menotti

FILE NUMBER:

ADC

465

2008

DATE DELIVERED:

4 December 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Cronin J

HEARING DATE:

By way of Written Submissions

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED FROM

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Jordan & Fowler Barristers & Solicitors

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Starke Lawyers

Orders

The wife contribute towards, and pay, 2/7 of the husband’s costs calculated for the period from 14 June 2017 until the last day of trial by agreement as to the amount and failing agreement, as assessed.
The application in a case filed 8 December 2017 and the response thereto filed 1 November 2018 are otherwise dismissed.

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 Lamb & Menotti (No. 2) 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 465 of 2008

Mr Lamb

Applicant

And

Ms Menotti

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 14 November 2017, in making final property orders between Ms Menotti (“the wife”) and Mr Lamb (“the husband”) along with some other corporate entities as respondents, I ordered as a conclusion of all outstanding proceedings that, save as to costs, all applications were otherwise dismissed[1].
[1] Published as Menotti & Lamb and Ors [2017] FamCA 918
On 8 December 2017 (and therefore within time as prescribed by ch 19 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)(“the Rules”)) by application, the husband sought costs in the sum of $81,641.33 of and incidental to the following:
a)The proceedings from 14 June 2017 (incorrectly described as 2007 in the submissions) being the date of service of the case outline document of the husband;
b)The application for interim orders filed on 20 July 2016 including all hearings in relation thereto; and
c)The husband’s contravention application filed 31 August 2016 including all hearings in relation thereto.
This costs application of the husband was listed before a registrar in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lamb and Menotti (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Lamb and Menotti (No. 2) [2018] FamCA 1010
Case: [2018] FamCA 1010
Decision Date: 4 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Lamb and Menotti (No. 2)*, Cronin J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application and a response concerning costs in a family law proceeding. The specific nature of the underlying dispute between the parties, Lamb and Menotti, is not detailed in the provided text, but the judgment concerns the allocation of legal costs incurred during the litigation.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate costs order, specifically whether one party should contribute to the other's legal expenses and to what extent. This involved assessing the conduct of the parties during the proceedings and the overall outcome of the applications made.

Cronin J ordered that the wife contribute towards and pay two-sevenths of the husband's costs, calculated for the period from 14 June 2017 until the final day of the trial. The quantum of these costs was to be agreed between the parties, or failing agreement, assessed by the court. The court further ordered that the application filed on 8 December 2017 and the response filed on 1 November 2018 were otherwise dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The wife contribute towards, and pay, 2/7 of the husband’s costs calculated for the period from 14 June 2017 until the last day of trial by agreement as to the amount and failing agreement, as assessed.

The application in a case filed 8 December 2017 and the response thereto filed 1 November 2018 are otherwise dismissed.

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

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.