FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Nakahara & Nakahara [2024] FedCFamC1F 875
File number: MLC 12403 of 2021 Judgment of: HARTNETT J Date of judgment: 19 December 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife sought an order for indemnity costs – Where the parties entered into consent orders for property settlement – Where the wife had earlier offered to settle the proceeding in the same terms as that consented to by the husband during the trial – Costs order made against the husband on a party-party basis Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 67, 68, 190
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 10.26, 12.17
Cases cited: Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225
Kohan and Kohan (1993) FLC 92-340
Mallet v Mallet (1984) FLC 91-507
Munday v Bowman (1997) FLC 92-784
PBF as Child Representative for AF (Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania) & TRF & LKL (2005) 33 Fam LR 123
Penfold v Penfold (1980) FLC 90-800
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 36 Date of last submissions: 15 October 2024 Date of hearing: 5-6 August 2024 Place: Melbourne Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Schmidt Solicitor for the Applicant: Purcell & Purcell Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Goussis Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mirabella Solicitors Second Respondent: Did not participate Third Respondent: Did not participate ORDERS
MLC12403 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS NAKAHARA
Applicant
AND: MR NAKAHARA
First Respondent
B PTY LTD
Second Respondent
MR C NAKAHARA
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
HARTNETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
19 DECEMBER 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding as assessed on a party-party basis as and from 4 August 2023 to 6 August 2024 inclusive (except for the costs of the hearing on 6 March 2024).
2.The husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to her costs application as assessed on a party-party basis.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Nakahara & Nakahara has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HARTNETT J
INTRODUCTION
Continue reading Nakahara & Nakahara
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Nakahara & Nakahara [2024] FedCFamC1F 875
- Case
- [2024] FedCFamC1F 875
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide whether the husband's conduct warranted an indemnity costs order, or if a party-party costs order was more appropriate. The court considered the financial circumstances of each party, the conduct of the parties, and whether the proceedings were necessitated by a failure to comply with orders. The wife argued that the husband had a vastly superior financial position and had the capacity to meet a costs order. The court found that the wife conducted herself appropriately throughout the proceedings, whereas the husband failed to comply with several orders and caused the wife to incur unnecessary costs.
The court exercised its discretion and found that although the husband's conduct did not warrant an indemnity costs order, a party-party costs order was appropriate. The court ordered that the husband pay the wife's costs of and incidental to the proceedings as assessed on a party-party basis from 4 August 2023 to 6 August 2024, excluding the costs of the hearing on 6 March 2024. Additionally, the husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs of and incidental to her costs application as assessed on a party-party basis.
In conclusion, the court found that the husband's conduct did not warrant an indemnity costs order, but a party-party costs order was appropriate given the circumstances. The court ordered the husband to pay the wife's costs of and incidental to the proceedings and her costs application on a party-party basis.
Orders
Orders of the court
MLC12403 of 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:
MS NAKAHARA
Applicant
AND:
MR NAKAHARA
First Respondent
B PTY LTD
Second Respondent
MR C NAKAHARA
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
HARTNETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
19 DECEMBER 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding as assessed on a party-party basis as and from 4 August 2023 to 6 August 2024 inclusive (except for the costs of the hearing on 6 March 2024).
2. The husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to her costs application as assessed on a party-party basis.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
Background
Background to the litigation
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Although the Court has the power to order a specific amount for costs,[4] which is generally the preferred approach, in the circumstances of the quantum of costs claimed in this matter, I consider that the method of calculating costs that is most appropriate, if a costs order is to be made, is by way of an assessment of those costs over whatever period the Court determines is the relevant period.CONSIDERATION[4] Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 12.17(1)(a).Section 117(2A)(a) financial circumstances of each of the parties As submitted by counsel for the wife, pending the disbursement to the wife of the net proceeds of sale of D Street in the State of Victoria (Order 6.2.2) and the contemporaneous payment to her by the husband (Order 11.1), the husband enjoys a vastly superior financial position to the wife. According to the agreed balance sheet, the husband enjoys control of, and access to, cash at bank of more than $300,000 and superannuation (which, at his age, can be withdrawn) of more than $243,000 while at the same time residing in the unencumbered former matrimonial home at M Street. He clearly has the capacity to meet a costs order as sought by the wife from his available liquid assets. Following the implementation of the final orders, there will be an equal allocation of the assets, including superannuation entitlements, and liabilities of the parties. Each of the parties will and have been required to meet their legal costs as a personal liability with neither party being in receipt of legal aid.Section 117(2A)(c) conduct of the parties and section 117(2A)(d) whether proceedings necessitated by a failure to comply with orders I find that the wife conducted herself appropriately throughout the proceeding. She complied with orders as made by the Court and complied with her obligations pursuant to the Rules. The husband’s submissions that the wife did not so act were not supported by the evidence before the Court, and nor was there evidence that the subpoenas issued on behalf of the husband were consequent to any failure by the wife to provide disclosure. I find the husband throughout the proceeding did not conduct himself in accordance with varying obligations imposed upon him, the husband failing to comply with orders, including:(1)the filing of an Amended Response by 27 November 2023 pursuant to Order 2(a) of the Orders made 2 August 2023, the effect of which was that the wife had no knowledge of the precise case being pursued by the husband although I observe that she did know what he said was the ambit of the dispute; and (2)filing late his evidence for trial in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (which was due to commence on 12 March 2024) and not in accordance with Orders 19 and 20 of Orders made 7 December 2023, as a direct consequence of which: that trial was vacated; the costs of the wife’s solicitors and counsel preparing for the vacated trial were thrown away; and the wife was compelled to incur the solicitor client costs of a mention on 6 March 2024, in relation to which an order for costs was made against the husband fixed in the amount of $2,500.00 pursuant to r 12.17 of the Rules, and a second compliance and readiness hearing on 5 April 2024. Significant respective costs as incurred by the wife over these events were thrown away.