Manotis and Manotis (Costs)
[2010] FamCAFC 134
•23 July 2010
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MANOTIS & MANOTIS (COSTS) | [2010] FamCAFC 134 |
| FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – COSTS – Costs of appeal – Substantive appeal was against an order for costs in property proceedings – Where the appeal was entirely unsuccessful – No submissions as to costs filed by Appellant – Appellant to pay the Respondent’s costs of appeal |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) |
| APPELLANT: | Mr Manotis |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Manotis |
| FILE NUMBER: | PTW | 2347 | of | 2004 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | WA | 14 | of | 2008 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 23 July 2010 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Perth |
| PLACE HEARD: | Perth |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Coleman, Thackray and Crooks JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 20 October 2009 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Western Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 21 April 2008 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | Unreported, Family Court of Western Australia, Penny J, 21 April 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: | Appellant in person |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: | Self represented litigant |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Howlett |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Slee Anderson & Pidgeon |
Orders
The Appellant pay the Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed and in default of agreement, as assessed.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Manotis & Manotis (Costs) is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PERTH |
Appeal Number: WA 14 of 2008
File Number: PTW 2347 of 2004
| Mr Manotis |
Appellant
And
| Ms Manotis |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 29 April 2010 this Court delivered reasons in relation to an appeal by the husband against an order requiring him to pay 75% of the wife’s costs in property settlement proceedings.
In our reasons for judgment of 29 April 2010 we said:
47.We have not been persuaded that her Honour erred in the exercise of the very wide discretion conferred on judges in dealing with costs issues. The appeal will therefore be dismissed.
48.The wife foreshadowed that she would seek an order for costs in the event the appeal was dismissed. The Memorandum of Advice provided to the husband by his solicitor warned him that if his appeal failed it would be likely that a costs order would be made against him.
49.At the conclusion of the appeal, we informed the parties that in the event the appeal failed we would give the husband the opportunity to provide written submissions within 28 days, setting out any reasons why he ought not bear the costs of the appeal. If no submissions are received we will, in due course, make an order for him to pay the costs of the appeal, to be assessed if not agreed. In the event he does file submissions which appear to have any merit we will, in due course, provide a timetable for the wife to reply.
Accordingly, we ordered that:
(2)In the event the husband opposes the wife’s application for him to pay her costs of the appeal he shall file and serve written submissions within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of these orders setting out the matters on which he relies in opposing the application.
No submissions were filed by the husband within the prescribed time period.
On 21 June 2010 the Appeal Registrar received a letter from the solicitors for the wife advising that they had not been served with written submissions and requesting that the Full Court make the order foreshadowed in paragraph 49 of the reasons of 29 April 2010.
Given the husband was entirely unsuccessful in his appeal and has not filed costs submissions, we propose to make the order as foreshadowed.
I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Full Court
Associate:
Date: 23 July 2010
0
0
1