Meadis and Meadis & Ors (No. 2) - [2020] FamCA 880

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEADIS & MEADIS AND ORS (NO. 2)

[2020] FamCA 880

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – costs application arising from a review of an exercise of power by a Senior Registrar and de novo hearing – where the wife seeks the husband pay her costs on an indemnity basis – where the husband opposes the wife’s application – where the husband has filed an appeal and seeks a stay of any costs order pending the outcome of the appeal – where the husband’s conduct in the proceedings has unnecessarily prolonged proceedings and occasioned trauma to the wife – where the wife made a written offer to settle her costs application – the offer of compromise was refused by the husband – where the husband was wholly unsuccessful in the proceedings – circumstances of an exceptional kind justifying the making of an indemnity order for costs – the husband ordered to pay the wife’s costs on an indemnity basis as sought by the wife.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117A
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 19.08, 19.18, Schedule 3 Pt 2.

Acland & Grohl [2019] FamCAFC 69
Colgate-Palmolive Co Ltd v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225
D & D (Costs) (No. 2) (2010) FLC 93-435
D & D (Costs) (No.2) (2010) FLC 93-435
Kohan & Kohan (1993) FLC 92-340
Limousin & Limousin (Costs) (2007) 38 Fam LR 478
Meadis & Meadis & Ors (Unreported, Family Court of Australia, Snr Reg Fitzgibbon, 21 October 2019)
Meadis & Meadis & Ors [2020] FamCA 543
Munday v Bowman (1997) FLC 92-784
Ragata Developments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation [1993] FCA 115
Tetijo Holdings Pty Ltd v Keeprite Australia Pty Ltd (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, 3 May 1991

APPLICANT:

Mr Meadis

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Ms Meadis

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Mr G Meadis

THIRD RESPONDENT:

Ms H Meadis

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Joliman Lawyers

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

11834

2016

DATE DELIVERED:

22 October 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Hartnett J

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED:

31 August 2020;
4 and 14 September 2020

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Harris Lieberman Solicitors

Orders

Within 7 days hereof the Applicant husband (‘the husband’) pay the costs of the Respondent wife (’the wife’) of and incidental to the hearing on 26 June 2020 of the review applications on an indemnity basis and fixed in the sum of $6,677.
The operation of order 1 above be stayed pending the hearing and determination of the husband’s appeal from the orders made 16 July 2020.

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 Meadis & Meadis 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…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Meadis and Meadis & Ors (No. 2) 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] FamCA 880
Decision Date: 22 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Meadis and Meadis & Ors (No. 2)* concerned an application by the husband for costs following a hearing on 26 June 2020, and a subsequent appeal by the husband from orders made on 16 July 2020. The dispute arose in the context of family law proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the husband should be ordered to pay the wife's costs of the 26 June 2020 hearing on an indemnity basis. A secondary issue was the appropriate disposition of the costs order pending the determination of the husband's appeal.

Hartnett J ordered that the husband pay the wife's costs of the 26 June 2020 hearing on an indemnity basis, fixing the sum at $6,677. However, the operation of this costs order was stayed pending the hearing and determination of the husband's appeal from the orders made on 16 July 2020.

Orders

Orders of the court

Within 7 days hereof the Applicant husband (‘the husband’) pay the costs of the Respondent wife (’the wife’) of and incidental to the hearing on 26 June 2020 of the review applications on an indemnity basis and fixed in the sum of $6,677.

The operation of order 1 above be stayed pending the hearing and determination of the husband’s appeal from the orders made 16 July 2020.

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.