Pacek & Saltzer (No 5)

Case [2025] FedCFamC1F 289

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Pacek & Saltzer (No 5) [2025] FedCFamC1F 289

File numbers MLC 2954 of 2020
MLC 7293 of 2024
#…78#…07
Judgment of WILSON J
Date of judgment 29 May 2025
Catchwords

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – COSTS – whether the costs of proceedings transferred from the Supreme Court can be dealt with by this court – held, they can and should be dealt with by this court.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – COSTS – applicant’s application for an indemnity costs order – held, costs orders to be made on a party/party basis for the Supreme Court proceedings from inception and on an indemnity basis since the transfer of the proceedings to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1).

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – COSTS – application of Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act to costs issues.

Legislation

 Family Law Act 1975 ss 79A, 95(2), 117

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 rr 12.13(4), 12.14

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) s 12

Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 r 26.08

Cases cited

AJG Australia Pty Ltd v Jacques [2015] VSCA 3

Amcor Ltd v Barnes [2021] VSCA 87

Bilson v Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd [2024] QCA 171

Casio & Casio (No 5) FedCFamC1A 205

Colgate-Palmolive Co Ltd v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225

DPP v Batich (2013) 38 VR 544

Fitzgerald v Fish (2005) 33 Fam LR 123.

Fowles & Fowles (No 5) [2024] FedCFamC1A 188

Hatcher v Cohn (2004) 139 FCR 425

Hill v Zuda Pty Ltd (2022) 275 CLR 24

Kaba & Zenin (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1A 169

Kohan v Kohan (1992) 16 Fam LR 245

Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd (2019) 267 CLR 560

MC Wholesaling Pty Ltd v Zheng [2024] VSCA 248

Medlon v Medlon (No 6) (2015) 54 Fam LR 1

Moy & Pao [2022] FedCFamC1A 17

Munday v Bowman (1997) 22 Fam LR 521

MWH Australia Pty Ltd v Wynton Stone Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) (2010) 31 VR 575

Pacek & Saltzer (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 666

Pacek & Saltzer (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 680

Pacek & Saltzer (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1F 252

Pacek & Saltzer [2024] FedCFamC1F 650

Powers v Maher (1959) 103 CLR 478

Re Yunghanns (2000) 26 Fam LR 331

Ressel & Morath [2023] FedCFamC1A 145

Sunland Waterfront (BVI) Ltd v Prudentia Investments Pty Ltd [2013] VSCA 237

Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 107

Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd v Reilly (1941) VLR 110

United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Herbert Smith Freehills (No 2) [2018] VSC 501

Wei & Xia (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1A 136

Division Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs 51
Date of hearing 1 and 9 April 2025
Date of last submission 29 April 2025
Place Melbourne
In MLC 2954 of 2020
Counsel…

Continue reading Pacek & Saltzer (No 5)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pacek & Saltzer (No 5) [2025] FedCFamC1F 289
Case
[2025] FedCFamC1F 289
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Pacek & Saltzer (No 5), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) addressed a dispute involving complex financial issues that originated in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant, Ms Pacek, sought costs incurred during proceedings that were transferred from the Supreme Court to the Federal Circuit Court, while the respondents, Mr Saltzer and several companies he controls, contested the application. The primary legal issues the court had to resolve were whether the Federal Circuit Court could deal with the costs of proceedings transferred from the Supreme Court and, if so, what basis should be applied for awarding these costs.

The court considered the applicability of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act to the costs issues and determined that the Federal Circuit Court did indeed have the authority to handle the costs of the proceedings transferred from the Supreme Court. It was held that costs orders should be made on a party/party basis for the Supreme Court proceedings from their inception and on an indemnity basis since the transfer to the Federal Circuit Court. This decision was based on the need to ensure that the costs provisions under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) were appropriately applied to the circumstances of the case.

In its judgment, the court ordered that the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court proceedings pay Ms Pacek's costs on a party/party basis from the start of those proceedings until they were transferred to the Federal Circuit Court, and on an indemnity basis from the point of transfer. Additionally, the court ruled that Mr Saltzer and the companies he controls must pay Ms Pacek's costs of and incidental to the current proceedings on an indemnity basis. These costs are to be assessed by a registrar of the Federal Circuit Court. The form of the order is subject to entry in the court's records, and any minor typographical or grammatical errors may be subject to review or variation according to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

MLC 2954 of 2020

MLC 7293 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS PACEK

Applicant

AND:

MR SALTZER

Respondent

MLC 7293 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN

MS PACEK

Applicant

AND

MR SALTZER

First Respondent

AND

H PTY LTD

Second Respondent

AND

Q PTY LTD

Third Respondent

AND

W PTY LTD

Fourth Respondent

AND

V PTY LTD

Fifth Respondent

AND

E PTY LTD

Sixth Respondent

AND

SALTZER PTY LTD

Seventh Respondent

#...78

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

CORPORATIONS LIST

BETWEEN

H PTY LTD

First Plaintiff

AND

SALTZER PTY LTD

Second Plaintiff

AND

Q PTY LTD

Third Plaintiff

AND

E PTY LTD

Fourth Plaintiff

AND

W PTY LTD

Fifth Plaintiff

AND

V PTY LTD

Sixth Plaintiff

AND

MS PACEK

Defendant

#…07

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

CORPORATIONS LIST

BETWEEN

H PTY LTD

First Plaintiff

AND

Q PTY LTD

Second Plaintiff

AND

E PTY LTD

Third Plaintiff

AND

V PTY LTD

Fourth Plaintiff

AND

MS PACEK

Defendant

ORDER MADE BY

WILSON J

DATE OF ORDER

29 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT –

1. The plaintiffs in Supreme Court proceedings #...78 and #…07 pay the costs of Ms Pacek on a party/party basis from inception of the proceedings until those proceedings were transferred to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) and on an indemnity basis from the transfer of the proceedings to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) such costs to be assessed by a registrar of this court.

2. The husband and companies he controls must pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to proceeding MLC 2954 of 2020 and of proceeding MLC 7293 of 2024 on an indemnity basis, such costs to be assessed by a registrar of this court.

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

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.