Matani and Matani and Ors

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

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
Fleming & Schmidt [2017] FamCAFC 12
Harris and Harris (1991) FLC 92-254
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534
Lenova & Lenova (Costs) [2011] FamCAFC 141
Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605

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

  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.

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

  1. By an Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 28 December 2016, the wife challenges costs orders made by Moncrieff J on 21 September 2016.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  1. The…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2017] FamCAFC 65
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matani and Matani and Ors involved a legal dispute in the Supreme Court of Australia. The plaintiffs, Matani and Matani, sought to challenge a decision made by the respondents, which had significant implications for their rights and interests. The nature of the dispute centred around the interpretation and application of specific statutory provisions and their impact on the plaintiffs' legal position.

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.