Mosef and Mosef and Anor
Case
•
[2017] FamCA 587
•11 August 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Mosef and Mosef and Anor [2017] FamCA 587
[2017] FamCA 587
11 August 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Mosef and Mosef and Anor*, Foster J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application for costs made by an intervenor. The specific nature of the underlying dispute between the parties, Mr and Mrs Mosef, is not detailed in the provided text, but it is clear that an intervenor sought to recover their costs associated with their participation in the proceedings and a subsequent costs application.
The central legal issue before the court was the determination of liability for the intervenor's costs. Specifically, the court was required to decide whether the wife should be ordered to pay the costs of the intervenor, and on what basis those costs should be assessed.
Foster J ordered that the wife pay the costs of the intervenor. These costs were to be in respect of the application to intervene and the costs application itself, and were to be assessed on a party/party basis. The parties were given one month to agree on the quantum of these costs, failing which the costs would be assessed by the court.
The central legal issue before the court was the determination of liability for the intervenor's costs. Specifically, the court was required to decide whether the wife should be ordered to pay the costs of the intervenor, and on what basis those costs should be assessed.
Foster J ordered that the wife pay the costs of the intervenor. These costs were to be in respect of the application to intervene and the costs application itself, and were to be assessed on a party/party basis. The parties were given one month to agree on the quantum of these costs, failing which the costs would be assessed by the court.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
2
Penfold v Penfold
[1980] HCA 4
Penfold v Penfold
[1980] HCA 4
Hawkins & Roe
[2012] FamCAFC 77