NELLUMS & CLEMEN

[2019] FamCA 219

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NELLUMS & CLEMEN [2019] FamCA 219

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – finalised parenting proceedings – cross costs applications – where the Court is not satisfied circumstances exist to justify an order for costs – no order made.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS –where the Court previously ordered costs be paid in a timeframe to be determined at final hearing – order made for costs to be paid within sixty days.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 404
Doherty & Doherty (1996) FLC 92-652

APPLICANT: Mr Nellums

RESPONDENT: Ms Clemen

FILE NUMBER: BRC 11282 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 12 April 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Baumann J

HEARING DATE: By written submissions

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPLICANT:	Self-represented
FOR THE RESPONDENT:	Self-represented

Orders

1. That the father pay a contribution to the costs of the mother for the Application in a Case considered on 24 April 2018, fixed in the sum of $1,500 within sixty (60) days.

2. That otherwise, there shall be no order for costs.

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 Nellums & Clemen 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 BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 11282 of 2014

Mr Nellums

Applicant

And

Ms Clemen

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This is a costs application brought by two articulate parents who were represented at various points of the proceedings, however were self-represented at the time the final parenting orders were made.  The context of this matter is relevant to the costs application and is as follows.

2. On 10 May 2013, a Court in Country A ordered joint custody for their only child and gave the mother leave to relocate with the child to Australia from 2014, with provision made for the father to spend time with the child during school holidays in Australia.  The mother moved to Australia with the child in 2014.

3. The father commenced the parenting proceedings to which this costs application relates on 20 October 2015 in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, seeking:

   a)equal shared parental responsibility;

   b)the child to live in Australia with the mother; and

   c)to spend time with the child each month and during school holidays, with the child permitted to travel overseas with the father to countries including Country A and Country B.

4. In her Response document filed 11 December 2015, the mother sought:

   a)sole parental responsibility;

   b)the father to spend time with the child each month and during…