Peters and Peters

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PETERS & PETERS [2011] FMCAfam 323

FAMILY LAW – Property – dispute over orders – interpretation of orders – cost applications.

Family Law Act 1975, ss.75, 117,117AB
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r.16.05

Sharma (2007) FamCA 425

Applicant: MR PETERS

Respondent: MS PETERS

File Number: (P)BRC 503 of 2009

Judgment of: Coates FM

Hearing date: 12 August 2010

Date of Last Submission: 12 August 2010

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 11 April 2011

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:	Evans & Company Lawyers
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Hackett

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Hamwood

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr A Cooper, Barry Nilsson Lawyers

ORDERS

1. That the wife is entitled to $177,857.91 from the monies belonging to the parties and held in trust by Evans and Company Family Lawyers and half of the total interest therein, subject to Orders 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 below.

2. That the wife pay costs to the husband in the sum of $5,250.00, to be deducted from the amount stated in Order 1.

3. That the wife pay costs to the husband in the sum of $1,465.00, to be deducted from the amount stated in Order 1.

4. That the wife pay costs to the husband in the sum of $3,300.00, to be deducted from the amount stated in Order 1.

5. That the wife pay costs to the husband in the sum of $1,815.00, to be deducted from the amount stated in Order 1.

6. That the wife pay costs to the husband in the sum of $522.50, to be deducted from the amount stated in Order 1.

7. That the husband pay half of refunded school fees to the wife.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

(P)BRC503 of 2009

MR PETERS

Applicant

And

MS PETERS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I delivered judgment and final orders in this matter on 21 July 2010.

2. It was a parenting and property case.

3. The distribution of the marital pool under the property orders has not been effected.

4. There are now applications from the wife and husband relating to the property orders made and for costs. I will use the broad reference of wife and husband even when referring to parenting issues when they would otherwise be referred to as the mother and father.

5. The wife applies for orders which would see:

   a)$177,857.91 paid to her pursuant to the property orders;

   b)Interest on joint money held in trust be divided equally;

   c)Monies reimbursed to the husband for school fees be distributed equally; and

   d)Costs of this application on an indemnity basis.

6. The husband’s Application in a Case filed 6 August 2010 seeks several costs orders against the wife:

   a)For hearings on 7, 13 and 24 August 2009 and 3 September 2009 resulting from an Application in a Case filed 6 August 2009, in the sum of $21,190.94…