Phillips & Hansford

Case [2020] FamCAFC 28

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PHILLIPS & HANSFORD [2020] FamCAFC 28
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Written submissions on the issue of costs – Indemnity costs awarded to the mother – Exceptional case where the payment of costs assessed only at scale would not be appropriate or just – Where the father is in a better financial position than the mother – Where the appeal was wholly unsuccessful – Where considerable expense would have been spared if the father had accepted the mother’s written offer of settlement – Where the father should not have prosecuted the appeal – Father to pay the mother’s costs of the appeal and this application for costs in a fixed sum.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 11F, 60CC, 117
Colgate Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225; [1993] FCA 801
D & D (Costs) (No. 2) (2010) FLC 93-435; [2010] FamCAFC 64
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397; [1988] FCA 364
Hansford & Phillips (No. 3) [2019] FCCA 912
J-Corp Pty Ltd v Australian Builders Labourers Federation Union of Workers – Western Australian Branch & Anor [1993] FCA 70
Kohan and Kohan (1993) FLC 92-340; [1992] FamCA 116
Limousin v Limousin (Costs) (2007) 38 Fam LR 478; [2007] FamCA 1178
Phillips & Hansford(No. 2) (2019) FLC 93-917; [2019] FamCAFC 165
APPELLANT: Mr Phillips
RESPONDENT: Ms Hansford
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Services Commission
FILE NUMBER: ADC 4008 of 2013
APPEAL NUMBER: SOA 21 of 2019
DATE DELIVERED: 12 February 2020
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
PLACE HEARD: In Chambers
JUDGMENT OF: Strickland, Ainslie-Wallace & Aldridge JJ
HEARING DATE: Heard by way of written submissions
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Circuit Court of Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 28 February 2019
LOWER COURT MNC: [2019] FCCA 912

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr McQuade
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: Jacqui Ion Lawyers
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms O’Connor SC
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: D’Angelo Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT

CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

 Mr Hemsley

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT

CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

 Legal Services Commission

Orders

  1. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal fixed in the sum of $30,511.10.

  2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of this application for costs fixed in the sum of $3,081.29.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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

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 r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

Appeal Number: SOA 21…

Continue reading Phillips & Hansford

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Phillips & Hansford [2020] FamCAFC 28
Case
[2020] FamCAFC 28
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Phillips & Hansford, the parties involved were the appellant and the respondent. The nature of the dispute pertained to the costs incurred during the appeal process. The High Court of Australia was the forum where this matter was adjudicated. The central legal issues before the court involved the assessment and determination of the costs to be borne by the appellant, both for the appeal itself and for the application for costs.

The court was tasked with evaluating the merits of the costs claimed by the respondent. This included reviewing the necessity and reasonableness of these costs in the context of the proceedings. The court also had to consider whether the respondent's claims were substantiated and whether the appellant had any valid grounds for contesting these costs. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the documentation and arguments presented by both parties.

The court ruled in favour of the respondent, determining that the costs claimed were reasonable and necessary. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal and the costs of the application for costs. This ruling was based on the court's finding that the respondent had adequately justified the expenses incurred. The specific amounts awarded were fixed at $30,511.10 for the appeal costs and $3,081.29 for the costs of the application, subject to formal entry in the court's records.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal fixed in the sum of $30,511.10.

2.

The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of this application for costs fixed in the sum of $3,081.29.

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.