Landon and Landon

[2009] FamCA 50

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LANDON & LANDON (NO. 2) [2009] FamCA 50

FAMILY LAW – COSTS

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Landon

RESPONDENT: Ms Landon

FILE NUMBER: SYC 7773 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 28 January 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Johnston JR

HEARING DATE: 28 January 2009

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPLICANT: In person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Serisier

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: McBride Harle & Martin

Orders

(Made prior to the costs judgment being delivered)

1. That the husband and the wife agree that the husband will withdraw his amended Application in a Case filed on 17 December 2008 on the basis that he will have 3 hours make-up time with the children J born on … March 2001 and J born on … January 2004 from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm on 3 February 2009.

2. That the husband have leave to withdraw his Amended Application in a Case filed on 17 December 2008 and such application stands withdrawn, is dismissed and removed from the Court’s list of active cases.

3. That by consent the children J born on … March 2001 and H born on … January 2004 shall spend time with their father from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm on 3 February 2009 on the basis that the husband shall collect them from school at the commencement of this period and return them to their mother’s residence at the conclusion of the period.

(Made following the costs judgment)

1. That the husband pay to the wife’s solicitors within 60 days the sum of $750 being the Court’s assessment of the wife’s appropriate costs.

2. That the costs of the Application in a Case filed on 22 January 2009 be reserved.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Landon & Landon is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 7773 of 2007

MR LANDON

Applicant

And

MS LANDON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In relation to the costs application relating to the withdrawn Applications in a Case there was always a problem with those applications and in the end result those applications were in fact dismissed.  To their credit the parties were able to resolve the substantive issue which involved the agreement which I recorded and the making of consent orders which I have recorded earlier today.

2. The usual position is that each party to proceedings pay his or her own costs. That is subject to a power given to the Court to make a costs orders pursuant to sub-section 117(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 if the Court considers it just to do so upon a consideration of relevant matters under sub-section 117(2A).

3. I am not aware of the respective financial circumstances of the parties and not in sufficient detail to be helpful in respect of this matter. 

4. The application is made on the basis that the husband was unsuccessful in those applications and, ultimately, withdrew those applications.  But I take into account the fact that the substance of those applications was resolved by agreement between the parties and that brought that aspect of the litigation to an end.  I also take into account that counsel had been instructed and has appeared today.  There were other proceedings between these parties before the Court, the costs of which have been reserved.  In all the circumstances I assess the costs in the amount of $750.00.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judicial Registrar W P Johnston.

Associate: 

Date:              5 February 2009