MAGANO & MAGANO

Link copied
Case Copied 23 min read

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MAGANO & MAGANO [2020] FCCA 1418
Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Consideration of Indemnity Costs – Applicant father convicted of rape and sexual assault of the Respondent mother – Application filed to intimidate the mother as a witness in criminal proceedings – Application had no prospect of success.  

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.117

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.13.04A

Cases cited:

Re Collins and the Victorian Legal Aid Commission (1984) FLC 91-508

Colgate Palmolive v Cussons (1993) 118 ALR 248

Preston v Preston [1982] 1 All ER 41

Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd and Others (1988) ALR 398 at 401

Gersten v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 260

Applicant: MR MAGANO
Respondent: MS MAGANO
File Number: BRC 12500 of 2016
Judgment of: Judge Lapthorn
Hearing dates: 11 February 2019 & 28 January 2020
Date of Last Submission: 10 February 2020
Delivered at: Brisbane
Delivered on: 5 June 2020

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Davey Law
Solicitors for the Respondent: Corney & Lind Lawyers

ORDERS

  1. That on or before 5 June 2021 the Applicant Mr Magano pay the Respondent Ms Magano, costs fixed in the sum of $50,000.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Magano & Magano is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRC 12500 of 2016

MR MAGANO

Applicant

And

MS MAGANO

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. I am asked to determine the respondent mother’s application for the applicant father pay her costs on an indemnity basis in relation to the parenting proceedings commenced by him on 20 October 2017.  The father opposes the making of any order for costs.  The parenting proceedings were resolved by way of final consent orders on 12 November 2019 which provided for the children to live with the mother and spend no time with the father and for the paternal grandmother to provide to the father biannual updates about the children received by email from the mother.

  2. The parties met and married in 2012.  They have three children, two of whom have special needs. X is seven years of age, Y is six and Z four.  The parties separated on a final basis on 17 November 2015 and were divorced on 9 April 2017.

  3. In 2016 the father was charged with four counts of rape, three counts of sexual assault and one count of attempted rape of the mother.  His criminal trial commenced in 2017 and he was found guilty of two counts of rape and one count of sexual assault.  He was sentenced to six years imprisonment but was released on parole in late 2019. 

Procedural background

  1. The father commenced the parenting proceedings upon filing his Initiating Application on 20 October 2017 just ten days prior to the commencement of his criminal trial.  In that application he sought orders that would provide, on an interim basis,…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read MAGANO & MAGANO and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2020] FCCA 1418
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Magano & Magano*, the applicant father, Mr Magano, sought costs against the respondent mother, Ms Magano. The dispute arose in the context of family law proceedings, where the court was asked to consider an application for indemnity costs. The applicant's prior conviction for the rape and sexual assault of the respondent was a significant factor in the proceedings.

The central legal issue before Judge Lapthorn was whether the applicant's family law application was filed with the ulterior purpose of intimidating the respondent as a witness in the criminal proceedings against him, and whether this application had any prospect of success. Consequently, the court was required to determine if the circumstances warranted an award of indemnity costs.

Judge Lapthorn reasoned that the applicant's family law application was an abuse of process, having been filed solely to intimidate the respondent in her role as a witness in the criminal proceedings. The court found that the application lacked any genuine prospect of success and was brought for an improper purpose. Applying the principles governing costs in family law, particularly where an application is vexatious or an abuse of process, the court determined that an award of indemnity costs was appropriate.

Accordingly, the court ordered that on or before 5 June 2021, the applicant Mr Magano pay the respondent Ms Magano costs fixed in the sum of $50,000.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That on or before 5 June 2021 the Applicant Mr Magano pay the Respondent Ms Magano, costs fixed in the sum of $50,000.

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.