Lawrence v Lawrence - [2004] WASC 90 (S)

JURISDICTION	:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CHAMBERS
CITATION	:	LAWRENCE -v- LAWRENCE & ORS [2004] WASC 90 (S)

CORAM

: MASTER SANDERSON

HEARD

:	5 & 6, 13 MAY 2004

DELIVERED

: 13 MAY 2004

SUPPLEMENTARY

DECISION

: 26 MAY 2004

FILE NO/S

:	CIV 1117 of 2000

MATTER

:	Inheritance (Family & Dependants Provision) Act 1972

BETWEEN

: ELAINE CYNTHIA LAWRENCE

Plaintiff
AND
ELAINE CYNTHIA LAWRENCE
KAREN ELAINE DUCAT as Executrices of the Will
of KEITH LIONEL LAWRENCE
First Defendants
KAREN ELAINE DUCAT
Second Defendant
LEWIS WILLIAM LAWRENCE
Third Defendant
ELLEN MAY HATHAWAY
Fourth Defendant
DAPHNE ANNE SARGENT
Fifth Defendant

[2004] WASC 90 (S)

LIONEL GEORGE LAWRENCE
Sixth Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Form of orders and costs

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Orders formulated

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Ms H E Prince
First Defendants	:	Mr K F Sleight
Second Defendant	:	Mr J C Curthoys
Third Defendant	:	Mr J C Curthoys
Fourth Defendant	:	Mr J C Curthoys
Fifth Defendant	:	Mr J C Curthoys
Sixth Defendant	:	Mr J C Curthoys

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Patrick Gethin & Co
First Defendants	:	Mayberry Hammond
Second Defendant	:	Paterson & Dowding
Third Defendant	:	Dawson Davies
Fourth Defendant	:	Dawson Davies
Fifth Defendant	:	Dawson Davies
Sixth Defendant	:	Dawson Davies

[2004] WASC 90 (S)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

[2004] WASC 90 (S)

MASTER SANDERSON

MASTER SANDERSON: After publishing reasons in this matter, the parties made submissions with respect to costs and the form of the order. These supplementary reasons deal with both these issues.

2 In mid-2002 the plaintiff's solicitors made an offer to the defendants
pursuant to the provisions of O 24A. The offer was complex and its terms need not be repeated in these reasons. What is significant is that the plaintiff offered to settle her claim for an amount of $325,000. I determined that she was entitled to an amount of $330,000. On that basis the plaintiff submitted that she should be entitled to her costs of the proceedings from the date the offer was made.
3 The complicating fact in this case is the dispute over various chattels
which were said to be part of the estate and the lady's fob watch. Just prior to the hearing, agreement was reached in relation to all of the chattels, but not the fob watch. Some of the chattels went to the plaintiff, some were retained by the estate. What is clear is that the eventual settlement does not mirror precisely the offer made pursuant to O 24A. In those circumstances I am not satisfied that it would be appropriate under the provisions of the order to award costs to the plaintiff. The general rule in cases brought under the Act is that the costs of all parties should be paid out of the estate. That, I think, is the proper order, at least with respect to the costs of the plaintiff and the second to…

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 Lawrence v Lawrence

Details

AGLC: Lawrence v Lawrence [2004] WASC 90 (S)
Case: [2004] WASC 90 (S)
Decision Date: 13 MAY 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lawrence v Lawrence was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The parties involved were a married couple, Lawrence and Lawrence, who were in the process of finalising their divorce. The central dispute related to the form of orders regarding the distribution of property and the costs associated with the proceedings. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate method for the division of the couple's assets and the allocation of costs between the parties.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the equitable distribution of the marital property and the circumstances under which one party should bear the other's legal costs. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions under the Family Law Act, as well as the principles of fairness and justice in the context of the particular circumstances of the case. The court also needed to examine the conduct of both parties throughout the litigation process, as this could have implications for the costs order.

In its decision, the court examined the contributions made by each party to the acquisition and maintenance of the marital property, as well as their respective financial circumstances post-separation. The court determined that the property should be divided in a manner that reflected the equitable considerations, taking into account the needs and contributions of each party. Regarding the costs, the court found that the conduct of the parties during the proceedings warranted an order that one party should bear the other's costs. The court concluded that the order should be made in a way that was clear and precise, ensuring that there was no ambiguity regarding the financial obligations of the parties.

The final orders of the court specified the exact division of the marital property and detailed the costs to be borne by each party. The court emphasised the importance of clear and unambiguous language in the orders to avoid any potential disputes in the future. Additionally, the court made an order for costs that reflected the conduct of the parties, ensuring that the financial burden was allocated in a manner that was fair and just.

Orders