Moby and Schulter (No 2)
Case
•
[2010] FamCA 1192
•24 December 2010
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Moby and Schulter (No 2) [2010] FamCA 1192
[2010] FamCA 1192
24 December 2010
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Moby and Schulter (No 2)*, Mushin J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application for costs made by the applicant following earlier proceedings. The dispute concerned the costs associated with two separate applications for costs filed by the applicant: one on 23 November 2009 and another on 27 September 2010.
The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate orders regarding the costs of these two applications. Specifically, the court had to decide whether to grant the applicant's costs for the application filed on 23 November 2009 and how to deal with the application filed on 27 September 2010.
Mushin J ordered that the applicant's costs of and incidental to her application filed on 23 November 2009, along with her costs for the subsequent application for costs, be assessed as between parties under Chapter 19 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* and paid by the respondent, failing agreement within 28 days. The applicant's application for costs filed on 27 September 2010 was otherwise dismissed. Furthermore, the court certified that the matter reasonably required the attendance of Counsel, pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the *Family Law Rules 2004*.
The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate orders regarding the costs of these two applications. Specifically, the court had to decide whether to grant the applicant's costs for the application filed on 23 November 2009 and how to deal with the application filed on 27 September 2010.
Mushin J ordered that the applicant's costs of and incidental to her application filed on 23 November 2009, along with her costs for the subsequent application for costs, be assessed as between parties under Chapter 19 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* and paid by the respondent, failing agreement within 28 days. The applicant's application for costs filed on 27 September 2010 was otherwise dismissed. Furthermore, the court certified that the matter reasonably required the attendance of Counsel, pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the *Family Law Rules 2004*.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
1
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty ltd
[1993] FCA 801
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty ltd
[1993] FCA 801