Niem & Tong (No. 2)

Case [2020] FamCA 1074


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Niem & Tong (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 1074

File number(s): PAC 3572 of 2014
Judgment of: FOSTER J
Date of judgment: 18 December 2020
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where application for costs by the Independent Childrens Lawyer – Where consideration of applicable principles – Where orders made for the parties to pay the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs
Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 117, 117(2), 117(2A), 117(3), 117(4), 117(5)

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 19.18(1)

Cases cited:

Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 135 ALR 160

De Roma & De Roma [2013] FamCA 566

Gahen & Gahen (No 2) [2013] FamCA 936

Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2007] NSWSC 23

Niem & Tong [2020] FamCA 1013

Parke & the Estate of the Late A Parke (2016) FLC 93-748

Number of paragraphs: 29
Date of last submission/s: 16 October 2020
Date of hearing: 2 October 2020
Place: Parramatta
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Givney
Solicitor for the Applicant: Maclarens Lawyers
Respondent – self‑represented litigant: The Respondent did not attend
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Legal Aid NSW

ORDERS

PAC 3572 of 2014
BETWEEN:

MS NIEM

Applicant

AND:

MR TONG

Respondent

MS WEAVER

Independent Children’s Lawyer

ORDER MADE BY:

FOSTER J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 DECEMBER 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.That the father pay his share of the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs in the sum of $10,208.

2.That the mother pay her share of the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs in the sum of $8,558 noting that the mother has already paid, by way of contribution to the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs, the sum of $1,650 in March 2017.

3.That Order 12 made 16 November 2018 be discharged.

4.That the Independent Childrens Lawyer direct that the sum of $3,950 held on behalf the parties by Legal Aid NSW be released to pay partially the mother’s liability in relation to costs as provided in Order 2 above.

5.That the mother pay the balance of her share of the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs within three months from the date of orders or at the conclusion of the family law property proceedings and from her share in those proceedings whichever is the earlier,

6.That the father pay his share of the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs within three months from the date of these orders.

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 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Niem & Tong has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

FOSTER J:

  1. The application for determination is…

Continue reading Niem & Tong (No. 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Niem & Tong (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 1074
Case
[2020] FamCA 1074
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Niem & Tong (No. 2)*, Foster J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application for costs made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. The proceedings involved the applicant, Ms Niem, and the respondent, Mr Tong, concerning matters related to their children.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of the applicable principles for awarding costs to the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the apportionment of those costs between the parties.

Foster J applied established principles regarding costs in family law proceedings, particularly concerning the role and remuneration of an Independent Children’s Lawyer. The court reasoned that both parents bore responsibility for the costs incurred by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. Consequently, the father was ordered to pay his share of the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs in the sum of $10,208. The mother was ordered to pay her share of $8,558, taking into account a previous contribution of $1,650. Further orders were made to facilitate the payment of the mother's outstanding liability, including the release of funds held by Legal Aid NSW and a timeframe for payment, either within three months or upon the conclusion of property proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

PAC 3572 of 2014

BETWEEN:

MS NIEM

Applicant

AND:

MR TONG

Respondent

MS WEAVER

Independent Children’s Lawyer

ORDER MADE BY:

FOSTER J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 DECEMBER 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. That the father pay his share of the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs in the sum of $10,208.

2. That the mother pay her share of the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs in the sum of $8,558 noting that the mother has already paid, by way of contribution to the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs, the sum of $1,650 in March 2017.

3. That Order 12 made 16 November 2018 be discharged.

4. That the Independent Childrens Lawyer direct that the sum of $3,950 held on behalf the parties by Legal Aid NSW be released to pay partially the mother’s liability in relation to costs as provided in Order 2 above.

5. That the mother pay the balance of her share of the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs within three months from the date of orders or at the conclusion of the family law property proceedings and from her share in those proceedings whichever is the earlier,

6. That the father pay his share of the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs within three months from the date of these orders.

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 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

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.