Legal Research
Cases
Laskari & Laskari and Ors

Laskari & Laskari and Ors

Case [2015] FamCA 398 22 May 2015

Type to search within this case.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LASKARI & LASKARI AND ORS

[2015] FamCA 398

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Costs application by the husband against the wife – Costs application by six respondents, being the husband’s family members and associated entities, against the wife – Where the costs applicants allege the wife’s applications in the substantive proceedings were wholly unsuccessful – Where it was found that the joinder by the wife of the six respondents who were not parties to the marriage was necessary due to their financial interconnectedness with the husband – Where it was found that the conduct of the wife in the proceedings, particularly in relation to the bringing of numerous unsuccessful interim applications, warranted an order for costs – Where the wife’s financial position was worse than the other parties – Order for specific sum of costs made against the wife, taking into account the wife’s financial circumstances.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) reg 19.18

Collins (1985) FLC 91-603 Colgate Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225 D’Cruz & Peirce and Ors (No. 2) [2010] FamCA 1150 [24] Farrel & Farrell [2011] FamCA 168 Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Limited & Ors, Idoport Pty Ltd v Donald In the Marriage of Munday and Bowman(1997) FLC 92–784 Jensen (1982) FLC 91-263 Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311 Police & Tannard [2009] FamCA 583 Prantage & Prantage (2013) FLC 93-544 Robert Argus [2007] NSWSC 23 Stoian & Fiening (Costs) [2014] FamCA 944
1^stAPPLICANT:	Mr Laskari
RESPONDENT	Ms Laskari

2^nd RESPONDENT:

K Pty Limited

3^rd RESPONDENT:

U Pty Limited

4^th RESPONDENT:

Mr N Laskari

5^th RESPONDENT

Ms S Laskari

6^th RESPONDENT:

Mr G Laskari

7^th RESPONDENT:

Ms X Laskari

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

450

2010

DATE DELIVERED:

22 May 2015

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Le Poer Trench J

HEARING DATE:

9 March 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr UM

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:	Diamond Conway
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:	Mr White

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT

Konstan Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR 2^ND TO 7^TH

RESPONDENTS:

Mr Millar

SOLICITOR FOR THE 2^ND TO 7^TH

RESPONDENTS:

Paltos Milevski Family Lawyers

Orders

(1)The wife is to pay the costs of the 2^nd to 7^th respondents (being the 2^nd to 7^th applicants in these costs proceedings) in the sum of $40,000. Such payment to be made as provided for hereafter.
(2)The wife is to pay the costs of the husband in the sum of $10,000. Such payment to be made as provided for hereafter.
(3)The husband and the wife sign all documents and do all things necessary to cause the funds payable to the wife pursuant to Order (4) made on 24 December 2014 to be distributed as to $40,000 to the solicitors for the 2^nd to 7^th applicants for account to them and $10,000 to the husband with the balance…

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 Laskari & Laskari and Ors

Details

AGLC: Laskari & Laskari and Ors [2015] FamCA 398
Case: [2015] FamCA 398
Decision Date: 22 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Laskari & Laskari and Ors*, the wife was ordered to pay the costs of the second to seventh respondents and the husband. The dispute concerned the distribution of funds payable to the wife pursuant to an earlier order made on 24 December 2014. The court was required to determine the quantum of costs payable by the wife to the other parties and the mechanism for their payment.

The court reasoned that the wife was liable for the costs incurred by the second to seventh respondents and the husband. The specific amounts ordered were $40,000 for the second to seventh respondents and $10,000 for the husband. The court applied the general principle that a party ordered to pay costs is responsible for the reasonable expenses incurred by the successful parties in the litigation.

The final orders stipulated that the wife was to pay $40,000 to the solicitors for the second to seventh applicants and $10,000 to the husband. These payments were to be satisfied from the funds payable to the wife under the December 2014 order, with the remaining balance to be paid to the wife thereafter. The husband and wife were directed to execute all necessary documents to facilitate this distribution.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The wife is to pay the costs of the 2nd to 7th respondents (being the 2nd to 7th applicants in these costs proceedings) in the sum of $40,000. Such payment to be made as provided for hereafter.

(2) The wife is to pay the costs of the husband in the sum of $10,000. Such payment to be made as provided for hereafter.

(3) The husband and the wife sign all documents and do all things necessary to cause the funds payable to the wife pursuant to Order (4) made on 24 December 2014 to be distributed as to $40,000 to the solicitors for the 2nd to 7th applicants for account to them and $10,000 to the husband with the balance thereafter paid to the wife.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Laskari & Laskari and Ors [2015] FamCA 398

Most Recent Citation

Gadde & Gadde [2015] FamCA 617

Cases citing this decision · 3 of 3 shown

RIMAC & RIMAC
[2020] FamCA 675 Para 2

…stive list of statutory considerations set out in section 117 before any such order is made.[2] … [2] See Laskari & Laskari and Ors [2015] FamCA 398 at [106] where reference is made to Prantage (2013) FLC 93-544. … 78. In Melville & Dent (No.2) [2009] FamCA 81, Cronin J discussed the basis upon which the question o…
Hanas and Jolaha (No 5)
[2019] FamCA 1001 Para 2

…lty, levels of responsibility and time involved, has not overcome the practical problem which exists. [1] See Laskari & Laskari and Ors [2015] FamCA 398 at [106] where reference is made to Prantage & Prantage (2013) FLC 93-544.…
Gadde & Gadde
[2015] FamCA 617 Para 1

…117(2A) generally. I note that the husband has a vastly superior earning capacity to the wife (section 117(2A)(a). [22] See Laskari & Laskari and Ors [2015] FamCA 398 at [106] where reference is made to Prantage (2013) FLC 93-544.…

View all 3 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 16 of 16 shown

Stoian & Fiening (Costs)
[2014] FamCA 944 Para 11

…Counsel for the husband referred the Court to the decision of Stoian & Fiening (Costs) [2014] FamCA 944 where his Honour Kent J outlined at paragraph 91 of the judgement: Commencing at [8] of his judgment Einstein J discussed the applicable principles in these terms: 8.As may be expected in what is likely the large…
FARRELL & FARRELL
[2011] FamCA 168 Para 7

…rs to the authorities of D’Cruz & Peirce and Ors (No. 2) [2010] FamCA 1150 [24]; Police & Tannard [2009] FamCA 583 and Farrel & Farrell [2011] FamCA 168 in support of the position that it is a consideration of public policy to ensure that the resources of the Court are engaged appropriately by parties to proceeding…
D’Cruz and Pierce and Ors (No 2)
[2010] FamCA 1150 Para 7

…hearing leading to a cost order against her in favour of the NAB. Counsel refers to the authorities of D’Cruz & Peirce and Ors (No. 2) [2010] FamCA 1150 [24]; Police & Tannard [2009] FamCA 583 and Farrel & Farrell [2011] FamCA 168 in support of the position that it is a consideration of public policy to ensure that…
Police and Tannard
[2009] FamCA 583 Para 7

…her in favour of the NAB. Counsel refers to the authorities of D’Cruz & Peirce and Ors (No. 2) [2010] FamCA 1150 [24]; Police & Tannard [2009] FamCA 583 and Farrel & Farrell [2011] FamCA 168 in support of the position that it is a consideration of public policy to ensure that the resources of the Court are engaged…
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd
[2007] NSWSC 23 Para 12

…ent J referred again to the judgement of Einstein J in Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Limited & Ors, Idoport Pty Ltd v Donald Robert Argus [2007] NSWSC 23 (unreported delivered 7 February 2007) and cited paragraph 11: In the result it is not an arbitrary exercise of power for the Court to weigh up compe…
Sony Entertainment (Australia) Ltd v Smith
[2004] FCA 1315 Para 11

…Giles JA at [22]; [following ( Wentworth v Wentworth (CA, 21 February 1996, unreported, per Clarke JA) and adopted in Sony Entertainment v Smith (2005) 215 ALR 788]; iv.a gross sum assessment, by its very nature, does not envisage that a process similar to that involved in a traditional taxation or assessment of cos…
Harrison v Schipp
[2002] NSWCA 213 Para 11

…airness parameter includes the Court having sufficient confidence in arriving at an appropriate sum on the materials available: Harrison v Schipp (2002) 54 NSWLR 738, per Giles JA at [22]; [following ( Wentworth v Wentworth (CA, 21 February 1996, unreported, per Clarke JA) and adopted in Sony Entertainment v Smith (20…
Hadid v Lenfest Communications Inc
[2000] FCA 628 Para 11

…can only be fixed broadly having regard to the information before the Court ”: Beach Petroleum at 124; [in Hadid v Lenfest Communications Inc [2000] FCA 628 at [35] it was said that the evidence enables fixing a gross sum “ only if I apply a much broader brush than would be applied on taxation, but that…is what t…
Oshlack v Richmond River Council
[1998] HCA 11 Para 10

…Court’s discretion to award costs or indemnity costs if justice so requires it (see Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72, at 134 (particularly subpar [3]), per Kirby J). Rather it recognises that an order for indemnity costs, has a particular context in this jurisdiction. 153. In this Court, one of th…
Easterday, Clark Ervin v Australian Securities Commission
[1996] FCA 793 Para 11

…se of the rule is to avoid the expense, delay and aggravation involved in protracted litigation arising out of taxation: Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1995) 57 FCR 119, Von Doussa J page 265: [following Purchase J in Leary v Leary [1987] 1 All ER 261 who described the purpose of the rule allowing the fixing of a gro…
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty ltd
[1993] FCA 801 Para 15

…ts by the wife, Counsel refers to the authorities of In the Marriage of Munday and Bowman (1997) FLC 92–784, Colgate Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225 and Prantage & Prantage (2013) FLC 93-544 (“ Prantage” ) in support of the proposition that it is appropriate to order indemnity basis having regard to…
Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson
[1993] FCA 392 Para 11

…f the discretion; i.the purpose of the rule is to avoid the expense, delay and aggravation involved in protracted litigation arising out of taxation: Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1995) 57 FCR 119, Von Doussa J page 265: [following Purchase J in Leary v Leary [1987] 1 All ER 261 who described the purpose of the rule allowing the fixi…
Mallet v Mallet
[1984] HCA 21 Para 3

…Counsel for the 2 nd to 7 th Respondents refers the Court to the authority of Collins (1985) FLC 91-603, where the Full Court outlined the broad discretion of the Court in determining whether to make an order for costs. Their Honours Evatt C.J., Pawley and Barblett S.JJ outlined at 79,877: There is …
Penfold v Penfold
[1980] HCA 4 Para 3

…Counsel for the 2 nd to 7 th Respondents refers the Court to the authority of Collins (1985) FLC 91-603, where the Full Court outlined the broad discretion of the Court in determining whether to make an order for costs. Their Honours Evatt C.J., Pawley and Barblett S.JJ outlined at 79,877: There is …
[1987] 1 WLR 72
[1987] 1 WLR 72 Para 11

…sum must be exercised judicially, and after giving the parties an adequate opportunity to make submissions on the matter: Leary v Leary [1987] 1 WLR 72 at 76, and Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No. 2) (1995) 57 FCR 119 at 120; vii.in terms of the necessity for the approach taken to be logical, fair and reasonable,…
Colgate Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd
(1993) 46 FCR 255 Para 15

…sought for the payment of indemnity costs by the wife, Counsel refers to the authorities of In the Marriage of Munday and Bowman (1997) FLC 92–784, Colgate Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225 and Prantage & Prantage (2013) FLC 93-544 (“ Prantage” ) in support of the proposition that it is appropriate to order indemnity basis havin…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
117 2 mentions (from Para 3)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)
19.18 2 mentions (from Para 9)