FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MILLIFORD & MILLIFORD | [2019] FamCA 128 |
| FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the husband sought indemnity costs against the solicitor for the wife – Where the wife had sought a declaration that a divorce order and property orders settled by consent in 1998 were improperly obtained – Where the wife was wholly unsuccessful in her application – Where the conduct of the solicitor did not amount to a “serious dereliction of duty” – Application for indemnity costs dismissed. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117(2A). Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 19.10, 19.11, 19.18 |
| Prantage & Prantage [2013] FamCAFC 105 Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Limited (1993) 118 ALR 248 Re Wilcox, Ex parte Venture Industries Pty Ltd (1996) 72 FCR 151 Hand & Bodilly [2013] FamCAFC 98 Australian Transport Insurance Pty Ltd & Anor v Graeme Phillips Road Transport Insurance Pty Ltd& Ors (1986) 71 ALR 287 Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Ltd & Ors (1988) 81 ALR 397 Jachimowicz & Jachimowicz (1986) 10 Fam LR 566 |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Milliford |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Milliford |
| SECOND RESPONDENT: | Mr Thomas |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYF | 6832 | of | 1998 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 11 March 2019 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Rees J |
| HEARING DATE: | 17 January 2019 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr Valentin |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | W Lawyers |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Young and Muggleton Lawyers |
| COUNSEL FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT: | Mr Valentin |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT: | Mullane & Lindsay Solicitors |
Orders
IT IS ORDERED
That the husband’s application that the wife’s solicitor pay the costs in relation to the application filed 26 July 2017 be dismissed.
That the husband’s application that the wife’s solicitor pay the costs in relation to the application filed 13 February 2018 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 Milliford & Milliford 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 SYDNEY |
FILE NUMBER: SYF 6832 of 1998
| Ms Milliford |
Applicant
And
| Mr Milliford |
Respondent
And
Mr Thomas
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Ms Milliford (“the wife”) and Mr Milliford (“the husband”) married in 1994. A decree nisi of dissolution of the marriage was pronounced in July 1999 and became absolute in August 1999.
Consent orders for property settlement were made by the Family Court of Australia on 10 August 1998.
Proceedings were instituted by the wife, acting for herself, by an Initiating Application filed on 6 June 2017 where she sought orders to…
Continue reading Milliford and Milliford
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Milliford and Milliford [2019] FamCA 128
- Case
- [2019] FamCA 128
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the wife's solicitor should be held personally liable for the costs incurred by the husband in relation to these two applications.
Rees J dismissed both of the husband's applications. The reasons for this dismissal are not detailed in the provided text, but the outcome indicates that the court found no grounds to order the wife's solicitor to pay the costs of the husband's applications.
Orders
Orders of the court
IT IS ORDERED
1.
That the husband’s application that the wife’s solicitor pay the costs in relation to the application filed 26 July 2017 be dismissed.
2.
That the husband’s application that the wife’s solicitor pay the costs in relation to the application filed 13 February 2018 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.