FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MATANI & MATANI AND ORS | [2017] FamCAFC 65 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Appeal against costs orders including an order for indemnity costs in favour of third parties – Held trial judge did not err in exercising his discretion as to costs – Appeal dismissed. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117 |
| Browne v Green (2002) FLC 93-115 |
| APPELLANT: | Ms Matani |
| 1ST RESPONDENT: | Mr D Matani |
| 2ND RESPONDENT: | Mr G Matani |
| 3RD RESPONDENT: | Mr F Matani |
| 4TH RESPONDENT: | L Pty Ltd |
| FILE NUMBER: | PTW | 5409 | of | 2009 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | WA | 22 | of | 2016 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 6 April 2017 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Perth |
| PLACE HEARD: | Perth |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Thackray, Ryan & Aldridge JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 6 April 2017 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Western Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 21 September 2016 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2016] FCWA 78 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: | Ms Cleary |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: | DFG Legal |
| COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT: | Mr Parkinson |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT: | Culshaw Miller |
| COUNSEL FOR THE 2ND – 4TH RESPONDENTS: | Mr Berry SC |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE 2ND – 4TH RESPONDENTS: | Leach Legal |
Orders
The appeal be dismissed.
The applications of the Respondents for costs be 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 Matani & Matani and Ors 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).
| THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PERTH |
Appeal Number: WA 22 of 2016
File Number: PTW 5409 of 2009
| Ms Matani |
Appellant
And
| Mr D Matani |
1st Respondent
And
| Mr G Matani |
2nd Respondent
And
| Mr F Matani |
3rd Respondent
And
| L Pty Ltd |
4th Respondent
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Thackray J
By an Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 28 December 2016, the wife challenges costs orders made by Moncrieff J on 21 September 2016.
The orders required the wife to:
a)contribute $299,069 towards the husband’s costs; and
b)pay the third parties’ costs on an indemnity basis, to be agreed or in default of agreement to be assessed.
The third parties were relatives of the husband and a company they controlled. Collectively, they sought costs of $337,027 in defending the wife’s claims. Accordingly, the wife’s potential costs obligation exceeds $600,000.
Background
The…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Matani and Matani and Ors 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] FamCAFC 65
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondents had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant statutory provisions, and if the plaintiffs had a valid claim for relief. The court was required to examine the statutory language, any relevant precedent, and the circumstances of the case to determine the correct interpretation and application of the law.
The court concluded that the respondents had correctly interpreted and applied the statutory provisions in question. The reasoning was based on a detailed analysis of the statutory language, supported by relevant legal principles and precedent. The court found that the respondents' decision was in accordance with the law and dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal. Additionally, the court dismissed the respondents' applications for costs, finding that the plaintiffs' appeal was not frivolous or without merit.
The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and to dismiss the respondents' applications for costs. These orders were subject to being formally entered in the court's records.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal be dismissed.
2.
The applications of the Respondents for costs be dismissed.
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.