Letchford & Havel (No 4) - [2025] FedCFamC2F 826

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Letchford & Havel (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC2F 826

File number(s): ADC 2366 of 2022

Judgment of: JUDGE DICKSON

Date of judgment: 20 June 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Parenting and property proceedings – Costs application filed by the Applicant following final hearing – Where the First Respondent and Second Respondents oppose the application – Where the First Respondent and Second Respondents are self-represented – Consideration of the factors set out in section 117(2A) – Where the Applicant received a section 102NA grant of legal aid partway through the proceedings and was previously privately represented – Where the Applicant seeks costs that pre-date the grant of legal aid – Where the First and Second Respondents failed to accept reasonable offers of settlement – Where the Respondents have the financial means to meet a costs order – Order for costs in relation to property applications only – Costs to be paid to the Applicant by the First and Second Respondents at scale.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117.

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 12.17.

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Sch 1.

Cases cited:
Browne & Greene (2002) FLC 93-115

Cooper & Oakley (No 2) [2012] FamCAFC 187

Cross & Beaumont [2008] 39 FamLR 389

D & D (Costs) (No 2) (2010) FLC 93-435

Fitzgerald (as child representative for A (Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania)) v FISH and Another (2005) 33 Fam LR 123

In the Marriage of P J and V Pennisi (1997) 22 Fam LR 249

JEL v DDF (2001) 28 FamLR 119

Letchford & Havel (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 1509

Nada & Nettle (Costs) (2014) FLC 93-612

Pascoe & Larson(No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1A 126

Penfold & Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311

Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2004) 200 ALR 447

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 79

Date of hearing: 6 June 2025

Place: Adelaide

Counsel for the Applicant: J. Dillon

Solicitor for the Applicant: ASW Lawyers

The First Respondent: Self-represented

The Second Respondents: Self-represented

ORDERS

ADC 2366 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS LETCHFORD

Applicant

AND:
MR HAVEL

First Respondent

AND:
MRS HAVEL and MR K HAVEL
Second Respondents

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE DICKSON

DATE OF ORDER:

20 JUNE 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Mr Havel do pay Ms Letchford’s legal costs and disbursements fixed in the sum of $24,689.23 within 60 days of the date of this Order.
2.Mrs Havel and Mr K Havel do pay Ms Letchford’s legal costs and disbursements fixed in the sum of $14,330.58 within 60 days of this Order.
3.Mr Havel do pay Ms Letchford’s legal costs in relation to the Amended Application in a Proceeding filed 4 February 2025 fixed in the sum of $3,529.52 within 60 days of this Order.
4.Mrs Havel and Mr K Havel do pay Ms Letchford’s legal…

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 Letchford & Havel (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Letchford & Havel (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC2F 826
Case: [2025] FedCFamC2F 826
Decision Date: 20 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves an application for costs made by Ms Letchford following a final hearing in parenting and property proceedings. The parties to the case are Ms Letchford, the Applicant, and Mr Havel, Mrs Havel, and Mr K Havel, who are the First and Second Respondents respectively. The case was heard in Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The Applicant is seeking an order for costs against the First and Second Respondents for the property applications only.

The court was required to consider the factors set out in section 117(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in determining whether to make an order for costs and, if so, the amount of the order. The Applicant had received a section 102NA grant of legal aid partway through the proceedings and was previously privately represented. The First and Second Respondents were self-represented throughout the proceedings and opposed the application for costs. The court also considered whether the First and Second Respondents had failed to accept reasonable offers of settlement and whether they had the financial means to meet a costs order.

The court found that the First and Second Respondents had failed to accept reasonable offers of settlement and that they had the financial means to meet a costs order. The court considered that the Applicant was entitled to costs for the property applications only, and that the amount of the costs should be fixed at scale. The court also considered that the Applicant was entitled to costs in relation to an Amended Application in a Proceeding filed 4 February 2025. The court made an order for costs in the sum of $24,689.23 to be paid by the First Respondent and $14,330.58 to be paid by the Second Respondents in relation to the property applications. The court also made an order for costs in the sum of $3,529.52 to be paid by the First Respondent and $7,059 to be paid by the Second Respondents in relation to the Amended Application in a Proceeding filed 4 February 2025.

The court dismissed all extant applications and noted that the form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records. The court also noted that the copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors or to record a variation to the order. The court emphasised the importance of complying with Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which makes it an offence to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

ADC 2366 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS LETCHFORD

Applicant

AND:

MR HAVEL

First Respondent

AND:

MRS HAVEL and MR K HAVEL

Second Respondents

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE DICKSON

DATE OF ORDER:

20 JUNE 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Mr Havel do pay Ms Letchford’s legal costs and disbursements fixed in the sum of $24,689.23 within 60 days of the date of this Order.

2. Mrs Havel and Mr K Havel do pay Ms Letchford’s legal costs and disbursements fixed in the sum of $14,330.58 within 60 days of this Order.

3. Mr Havel do pay Ms Letchford’s legal costs in relation to the Amended Application in a Proceeding filed 4 February 2025 fixed in the sum of $3,529.52 within 60 days of this Order.

4. Mrs Havel and Mr K Havel do pay Ms Letchford’s legal costs in relation to the Amended Application in a Proceeding filed 4 February 2025 fixed in the sum of $7,059 within 60 days of this Order.

5. All extant applications are hereby dismissed.

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 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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.

File number(s):	ADC 2366 of 2022
Judgment of:	JUDGE DICKSON
Date of judgment:	20 June 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Parenting and property proceedings – Costs application filed by the Applicant following final hearing – Where the First Respondent and Second Respondents oppose the application – Where the First Respondent and Second Respondents are self-represented – Consideration of the factors set out in section 117(2A) – Where the Applicant received a section 102NA grant of legal aid partway through the proceedings and was previously privately represented – Where the Applicant seeks costs that pre-date the grant of legal aid – Where the First and Second Respondents failed to accept reasonable offers of settlement – Where the Respondents have the financial means to meet a costs order – Order for costs in relation to property applications only – Costs to be paid to the Applicant by the First and Second Respondents at scale.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117. Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 12.17. Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Sch 1.
Cases cited:	Browne & Greene (2002) FLC 93-115 Cooper & Oakley (No 2) [2012] FamCAFC 187 Cross & Beaumont [2008] 39 FamLR 389 D & D (Costs) (No 2) (2010) FLC 93-435 Fitzgerald (as child representative for A (Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania)) v FISH and Another (2005) 33 Fam LR 123 In the Marriage of P J and V Pennisi (1997) 22 Fam LR 249 JEL v DDF (2001) 28 FamLR 119 Letchford & Havel (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 1509 Nada & Nettle (Costs) (2014) FLC 93-612 Pascoe & Larson(No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1A 126 Penfold & Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311 Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2004) 200 ALR 447
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	79
Date of hearing:	6 June 2025
Place:	Adelaide
Counsel for the Applicant:	J. Dillon
Solicitor for the Applicant:	ASW Lawyers
The First Respondent:	Self-represented
The Second Respondents:	Self-represented

ADC 2366 of 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MS LETCHFORD Applicant
AND:	MR HAVEL First Respondent
AND:	MRS HAVEL and MR K HAVEL Second Respondents

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE DICKSON
DATE OF ORDER:	20 JUNE 2025