LUCAS & LUCAS

[2020] FamCA 319

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LUCAS & LUCAS [2020] FamCA 319

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application for costs order by the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where contribution by the father would cause financial hardship for himself and may adversely impact the children – Ordered application be dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117

APPLICANT: Mr Lucas

RESPONDENT: Ms Lucas

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW Newcastle Family Law

FILE NUMBER: NCC 2525 of 2015

DATE DELIVERED: 4 May 2020

PLACE DELIVERED: In Chambers

PLACE HEARD: Newcastle

JUDGMENT OF: Cleary J

HEARING DATE: Heard by way of financial information filed by the applicant

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: N/A

THE APPLICANT: Self-Represented

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Sundstrom

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: NLS Law

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Rugendyke

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW Newcastle Family Law

Orders

1. The application for costs made on behalf of the Independent Children’s Lawyer for contribution by the Applicant father is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Lucas & Lucas has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER: NCC 2525 of 2015

Mr Lucas

Applicant

And

Ms Lucas

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. On 26 March 2019 this matter was heard undefended and determined the following day.

2. An application was made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) for contribution by the father to costs.

History of Relevant Events

1. On that day the father was directed to file and serve a Financial Statement or other financial information relied on by 26 April 2019.

2. The father applied for and was granted an extension of time to 16 May 2019.

3. A Financial Statement was received within time.

4. Regrettably the matter has been overlooked by the Court.

Conclusion

1. Having considered the financial position of the father I conclude that although he was employed with a reasonable income his financial circumstances in May 2019 were such that a contribution to costs would cause hardship.  He has had extensive costs associated with bringing a Hague application and for these proceedings.

2. Further I take into account the obligation of the father to pay maintenance for the subject children whose welfare could be adversely affected by an order.

3. Finally, I take into account the fact that the husband was not present at the hearing and had not filed trial documents.  He had generally intended to participate.  The matter had been allocated three days for trial and concluded within one day.

4. Accordingly, the application of the ICL is declined.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cleary delivered on 4 May 2020.

Associate: 

Date:  4 May 2020