Pera & Pera (No. 2)

[2007] FamCA 1209

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PERA & PERA (NO. 2) [2007] FamCA 1209

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Section 117(2A)

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Pera

RESPONDENT: Mrs Pera

FILE NUMBER: MLF 6059 of 2003

DATE DELIVERED: 28 September 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: By way of written submissions

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: By way of written submissions

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED FROM:

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Mort

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Nedovic & Co

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Hammet

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Oakfair Lawyers

Orders

1. That the wife make a contribution towards the costs of the husband in the sum of $6632.

2. That the said costs be paid by 4.00pm on 31 October 2007.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Pera & Pera is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLF 6059 of 2003

MR PERA

Applicant

And

MRS PERA  

Respondent

REASONS FOR COSTS JUDGMENT

1. On 4 April 2007, I made final orders between the parties in respect of the division of their property.  The parties presented minutes and indicated that the orders were sought by their joint consent. 

2. Not long later, disputes arose between the parties as to the compliance by each other of those orders.  On 3 August 2007, I delivered reasons for judgment and made orders in respect of the applications by each party for enforcement of the orders of 4 April 2007. 

3. In my orders, I made provision for the parties to provide written submission in relation to the question of any costs arising out of that hearing.

4. The husband filed a submission as to costs which was drawn by his counsel.  That submission was dated 15 August 2007 and sought costs for a variety of appearances as well as the preparation of documents by counsel.  The husband also sought a limited amount of costs for the attendance by his solicitor.

5. By written submission dated 24 August 2007, signed by counsel for the wife, 19 pages were received.  Apart from disputing the entitlement of the husband to an order for costs, counsel for the wife indicated that the husband should pay the wife’s costs for the preparation of the submissions in the total sum of $5357.40.

6. The enforcement dispute was about a whole raft of issues.  They included the entitlement and ownership of the respective parties to two paintings, some Telstra shares, the compliance by each party with the orders of April 2007, the costs thrown away as a result of the matter having to be adjourned as well as issues between the parties which either did not proceed or were otherwise resolved.

7. In my reasons for making orders, I indicated that there were some matters about which I was quite satisfied but others not.  I did make a finding that in respect of the wife’s responsibilities under the order in respect of an AT Limited loan, the husband’s complaint…