Lotta and Lotta (No 3)
Case
•
[2015] FamCA 695
•21 August 2015
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Lotta and Lotta (No 3) [2015] FamCA 695
[2015] FamCA 695
21 August 2015
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Lotta and Lotta (No 3)*, Foster J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application for costs following earlier proceedings. The dispute concerned the wife's costs of and incidental to an Enforcement Application filed on 5 February 2015, as well as the costs of the subsequent costs application itself.
The primary legal issue before the court was the apportionment of costs between the parties. Specifically, the court was required to determine the extent to which the husband should be ordered to pay the wife's costs associated with the Enforcement Application and the costs application.
Foster J ordered that the husband pay 80 per cent of the wife's costs of and incidental to the Enforcement Application filed on 5 February 2015, including the costs of the costs application. These costs are to be paid on a party/party basis, either as agreed between the parties within one month of the order or as assessed by the court.
The primary legal issue before the court was the apportionment of costs between the parties. Specifically, the court was required to determine the extent to which the husband should be ordered to pay the wife's costs associated with the Enforcement Application and the costs application.
Foster J ordered that the husband pay 80 per cent of the wife's costs of and incidental to the Enforcement Application filed on 5 February 2015, including the costs of the costs application. These costs are to be paid on a party/party basis, either as agreed between the parties within one month of the order or as assessed by the court.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Lotta and Lotta (No 3) [2015] FamCA 695
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
2
Lotta and Lotta (No 2)
[2015] FamCA 551
Penfold v Penfold
[1980] HCA 4
Penfold v Penfold
[1980] HCA 4