FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MANESH & MANESH (NO. 2) | [2020] FamCA 904 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS – pending appeal – no basis shown. FAMILY LAW – COSTS APPLICATION – indemnity costs ordered. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 68Q, 117 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 18.01 |
| Aldridge & Keaton (Stay Appeal) [2009] FamCAFC 106 Alexander v Cambridge Credit CorporationLtd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685 Armington & Armington and Ors [2020] FamCA 765 Colgate–Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225 Manesh & Manesh [2020] FamCA 792 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Myer Emporium Ltd [No. 1] (1986) 160 CLR 220 Fitzgerald (as child representative for A (Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania)) v Fish and Another (2005) Fam LR 123 Goodridge & Beadle [2019] FamCA 786 Gronow & Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513 Harlen & Hellyar [2020] FamCA 413 Hearl & Digby [2020] FamCA 474 House v King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Jackson & Balen [2009] FamCAFC 131 Jennings Construction Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 681 Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605 Medlow & Medlow (2016) 54 Fam LR 389 Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513 Prantage & Prantage [2013] FamCAFC 105 |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Manesh |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Manesh |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Sue Macgregor |
| FILE NUMBER: | MLC | 8955 | of | 2019 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 28 October 2020 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Melbourne |
| PLACE HEARD: | Melbourne |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Wilson J |
| HEARING DATE: | 16 October 2020 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Ms S. Hession |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Freeman Family Law |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Not Applicable |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Not Applicable |
| COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Not Applicable |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Macgregor Barristers and Solicitors |
Orders
I order the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $14,440 by way of indemnity costs on or before 4:00pm on 27 November 2020.
I dismiss the respondent’s stay application.
The wife and the ICL must file and serve any submissions in relation to the costs of and incidental to the stay application by 4:00pm on Wednesday 4 November 2020.
Mr Manesh must file and serve any submissions in response by 4:00pm on Wednesday 11 November 2020.
The question of costs of and incidental to the stay application will be decided on the papers.
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 Manesh & Manesh 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 MELBOURNE |
FILE NUMBER: MLC 8955 of 2019
| Ms Manesh |
Applicant
Continue reading Manesh and Manesh (No. 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Manesh and Manesh (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 904
- Case
- [2020] FamCA 904
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the respondent had established a sufficient basis to warrant a stay of proceedings, and to consider the application for indemnity costs.
Wilson J dismissed the respondent's application for a stay, finding no basis had been shown. The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant a sum of $14,440 by way of indemnity costs. Further submissions were to be filed and served by the wife and the Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) regarding the costs of the stay application, with the respondent to file and serve any responsive submissions. The question of costs incidental to the stay application was to be decided on the papers.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
I order the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $14,440 by way of indemnity costs on or before 4:00pm on 27 November 2020.
2.
I dismiss the respondent’s stay application.
3.
The wife and the ICL must file and serve any submissions in relation to the costs of and incidental to the stay application by 4:00pm on Wednesday 4 November 2020.
4.
Mr Manesh must file and serve any submissions in response by 4:00pm on Wednesday 11 November 2020.
5.
The question of costs of and incidental to the stay application will be decided on the papers.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
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.