Lawrence v Sammut - [2021] FedCFamC2G 84

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Lawrence v Sammut [2021] FedCFamC2G 84

File number(s): SYG 346 of 2021

Judgment of: JUDGE MANOUSARIDIS

Date of judgment: 3 September 2021

Catchwords: COSTS – Practice and procedure – application to substitute order that applicant pay the respondents’ costs as agreed or taxed with an order that the Court fix those costs – application for leave to reopen orders because of asserted errors – applications dismissed.

Cases cited: Lawrence v Sammut [2021] FCCA 1929

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 10

Date of hearing: 3 September 2021

Place: Sydney

The Applicant: Appeared in person, by telephone

Solicitor for the Respondents: Ms K McLean of McLean & Associates Solicitors, by telephone
ORDERS

SYG 346 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

IN THE MATTER OF WAYNE JAMES LAWRENCE

BETWEEN:
WAYNE JAMES LAWRENCE

Applicant

AND:
ALICE ALEXANDRIA SAMMUT

First Respondent

PAUL WILLIAM CIANTAR

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE MANOUSARIDIS

DATE OF ORDER:

3 SEPTEMBER 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant’s application to vary order 2 of the orders made on 27 August 2021 is dismissed.
2.The applicant’s application for an order to re-open the orders made on 27 August 2021 on the ground of error is dismissed.
3.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the applications referred to in orders 1 and 2, such costs to be set in the amount of $600.00.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
4.These orders are the orders of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)

On 20 August 2021 I made orders in relation to an application the applicant brought for the setting aside of a bankruptcy notice.[1] In those orders, I directed that the matter be listed before me at 4:00 pm on 27 August 2021 for the purpose of my making the following orders:
(a)The application is dismissed.
(b)The applicant pay the respondents’ costs.
[1] Lawrence v Sammut [2021] FCCA 1929
I ordered that there be liberty to apply before 27 August 2021, if any party wishes to apply for a different costs order to the one referred to in order 1(b) of the orders I made on 20 August 2021. I also made an order extending the time for compliance with the requirements of the bankruptcy notice.
The matter came before me at 4:00 pm on 27 August 2021. The listing was by telephone. The applicant (for reasons it is not necessary to set out, but for…

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 Sammut

Details

AGLC: Lawrence v Sammut [2021] FedCFamC2G 84
Case: [2021] FedCFamC2G 84
Decision Date: 3 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lawrence and Sammut were the parties involved in a legal dispute which was adjudicated by the court. The matter pertained to the costs incurred during the litigation process, specifically focusing on an application to replace an existing order mandating the applicant to cover the respondents’ costs as agreed or taxed, with a new order that would allow the court to set those costs. Additionally, there was an application seeking leave to reopen previous orders due to alleged errors. The court dismissed both applications.
The central legal issues that the court had to address were whether the applicant had grounds to substitute the existing order concerning costs with a new order and whether there were sufficient grounds to reopen the previous orders based on the claimed errors. The court examined the merits of both applications and considered the procedural aspects of the case, including the adherence to established legal principles and practices.
In its reasoning, the court evaluated the merits of the applicant's request to replace the existing order concerning costs. It assessed whether there were compelling reasons to deviate from the agreed or taxed costs and whether it was appropriate for the court to set the costs instead. The court also scrutinised the application for leave to reopen previous orders, examining whether the alleged errors were significant enough to warrant a reopening of those orders. Upon considering the arguments presented and the applicable legal standards, the court found that neither application met the necessary criteria for success. Consequently, the court dismissed both applications, upholding the existing orders and rejecting the requests for modification and reopening.

Orders