FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| PAYSEN & LAUKIEN | [2020] FamCAFC 101 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS AT FIRST INSTANCE – Where each party sought an order for costs following parenting and property proceedings including a trial to determine their property settlement dispute – Where the husband made an offer to the wife more favourable to her than the ultimate division of assets – Where the wife’s late introduction of a claim pursuant to the principles in Kennon v Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757 required an adjournment of the trial – Where the wife sought costs on the basis of the husband’s conduct of the proceedings – Where the husband failed to comply with his obligations of full and frank disclosure – Where the trial judge found there were circumstances justifying an order for costs in favour of each party – Where the trial judge considered and applied, in turn, each of the statutory considerations prescribed in s 117(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) relevant to the applications and identified and applied relevant principles – Where the majority of the husband’s challenges on appeal are as to the weight attributed by the trial judge to relevant factors – Where it is only in the rarest of cases that the Full Court should interfere with a costs order – Where the trial judge was not bound, in the exercise of his discretion, to attach determinative weight to the husband’s offer in all the circumstances of this case – Appeal dismissed – Costs of and incidental to the appeal ordered in favour of the wife. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117 |
| Browne v Green (2002) FLC 93-115; [2002] FamCA 791 Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63 Harris and Harris (1991) FLC 92-254; [1991] FamCA 124 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Kennon v Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757; [1997] FamCA 27 Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513; [1986] HCA 17 Northern Territory v Sangare (2019) 265 CLR 164; [2019] HCA 25 Paysen & Laukien [2017] FCWAM 185 Paysen & Laukien [2018] FCWA 228 Paysen & Laukien [2019] FCWA 107 Robinson and Higginbotham (1991) FLC 92-209; [1991] FamCA 4 |
| APPELLANT: | Mr Paysen |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Laukien |
| FILE NUMBER: | PTW | 3869 | Of | 2016 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | WEA | 41 | Of | 2019 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 1 May 2020 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Brisbane |
| PLACE HEARD: | Perth |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Strickland, Kent & Austin JJ (all by video link) |
| HEARING DATE: | 31 March 2020 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 19 September 2019 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2019] FCWA 209 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: | Mr Berry SC |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: | Calverley Johnston |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Beckerling |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Bannerman Solicitors |
Orders
The appeal be dismissed.
The appellant husband pay the respondent wife’s costs of and incidental to the appeal in the fixed sum of $10,000.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in…
Continue reading Paysen & Laukien
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Paysen & Laukien [2020] FamCAFC 101
- Case
- [2020] FamCAFC 101
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal was brought by Paysen against Laukien, and the matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The dispute centred around the division of assets following the dissolution of the marriage between the parties. The husband contended that the primary judge had erred in her assessment of the value of certain assets, as well as in her decision to allocate a disproportionate share of the property to the wife.
The legal issues before the court involved the proper interpretation and application of the Family Law Act 1975, particularly sections relating to the equitable division of property. The husband argued that the primary judge had misapplied the principles of fairness and had failed to give appropriate weight to his contributions to the marriage. The wife, on the other hand, contended that the primary judge's decision was correct and that the appeal should be dismissed.
The court found that the primary judge had not erred in her assessment of the assets or in her decision to allocate a disproportionate share of the property to the wife. The court held that the primary judge had appropriately considered the husband's contributions to the marriage and had made a fair and reasonable order in relation to the division of property. The appeal was dismissed, and the husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs of and incidental to the appeal in the fixed sum of $10,000.
The legal issues before the court involved the proper interpretation and application of the Family Law Act 1975, particularly sections relating to the equitable division of property. The husband argued that the primary judge had misapplied the principles of fairness and had failed to give appropriate weight to his contributions to the marriage. The wife, on the other hand, contended that the primary judge's decision was correct and that the appeal should be dismissed.
The court found that the primary judge had not erred in her assessment of the assets or in her decision to allocate a disproportionate share of the property to the wife. The court held that the primary judge had appropriately considered the husband's contributions to the marriage and had made a fair and reasonable order in relation to the division of property. The appeal was dismissed, and the husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs of and incidental to the appeal in the fixed sum of $10,000.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal be dismissed.
2.
The appellant husband pay the respondent wife’s costs of and incidental to the appeal in the fixed sum of $10,000.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
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.