Pitney & Amato (No 2) - [2022] FedCFamC1F 487

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 1)
Pitney & Amato (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 487

File number(s): NCC 1317 of 2021

Judgment of: CAMPTON J

Date of judgment: 14 July 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – INTERIM COSTS – Application for costs of and incidental to an interim hearing – Where a raft of interlocutory disputes were resolved by consent – Where the applicant was unsuccessful in a factional part of the proceedings but not the proceedings as a whole – Where the parties and their legal representatives conducted the interim litigation consistent with the overarching purpose of the rules of Court – Circumstances do not justify an order for costs – Respondent’s application for costs dismissed.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 90SM, 117

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 67

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)

Cases cited:
Anison & Anison (2019) FLC 93-908; [2019] FamCAFC 108

Atkins & Hunt [2017] FamCAFC 131;

Pitney & Amato [2022] FedCFamC1F 436

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 19

Date of last submission/s: 29 June 2022

Date of hearing: 10 June 2022

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Willoughby

Solicitor for the Applicant: Hannaway Lawyers Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Puckey QC

Solicitor for the Respondent: Medson Legal
ORDERS

NCC 1317 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MS PITNEY

Applicant

AND:
MR AMATO

Respondent

order made by:

CAMPTON J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 July 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.That the respondent's application for the applicant to pay his costs of and incidental to the interim hearing on 10 June 2022 is dismissed.

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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Pitney & Amato has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CAMPTON J:
Introduction

This is an application by Mr Amato (“the respondent”) for costs payable by Ms Pitney (“the applicant”) in a fixed sum of and incidental to an interim hearing which took place before me on 10 June 2022.
The applicant commenced proceedings for adjustment of property pursuant to s 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) by way of an Initiating Application filed on 25 April 2021,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Pitney & Amato (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Pitney & Amato (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 487
Case: [2022] FedCFamC1F 487
Decision Date: 14 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pitney & Amato (No 2) involved an application for costs by the respondent, Mr Amato, against the applicant, Ms Pitney, in relation to an interim hearing held on 10 June 2022. The matter before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia concerned family law proceedings. The court was required to determine whether Ms Pitney should be ordered to pay Mr Amato’s costs of and incidental to the interim hearing.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the circumstances warranted an order for Ms Pitney to pay Mr Amato’s costs. The court noted that while Ms Pitney was unsuccessful in a particular aspect of the proceedings, the overall litigation had been conducted in a manner consistent with the overarching purpose of the rules of court. Both parties and their legal representatives had managed the interim litigation in a way that aligned with the intended objectives of the court rules.

In dismissing the application for costs, Campton J held that the circumstances did not justify an order for costs. The court found that the litigation had been conducted appropriately, and thus, the respondent's application for costs was dismissed. The judge did not find grounds to compel Ms Pitney to pay the costs as sought by Mr Amato.

The court's order dismissed the respondent's application, and it was made clear that the form of the order is subject to review for minor errors or variations as per the relevant rules. Additionally, it was noted that any publication of proceedings involving family law must comply with the restrictions under Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

NCC 1317 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS PITNEY

Applicant

AND:

MR AMATO

Respondent

order made by:

CAMPTON J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 July 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. That the respondent's application for the applicant to pay his costs of and incidental to the interim hearing on 10 June 2022 is dismissed.

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).

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish 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.

File number(s):	NCC 1317 of 2021
Judgment of:	CAMPTON J
Date of judgment:	14 July 2022
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – INTERIM COSTS – Application for costs of and incidental to an interim hearing – Where a raft of interlocutory disputes were resolved by consent – Where the applicant was unsuccessful in a factional part of the proceedings but not the proceedings as a whole – Where the parties and their legal representatives conducted the interim litigation consistent with the overarching purpose of the rules of Court – Circumstances do not justify an order for costs – Respondent’s application for costs dismissed.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 90SM, 117 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 67 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)
Cases cited:	Anison & Anison (2019) FLC 93-908; [2019] FamCAFC 108 Atkins & Hunt [2017] FamCAFC 131; Pitney & Amato [2022] FedCFamC1F 436
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	19
Date of last submission/s:	29 June 2022
Date of hearing:	10 June 2022
Place:	Sydney
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Willoughby
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Hannaway Lawyers Pty Ltd
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Puckey QC
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Medson Legal

NCC 1317 of 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MS PITNEY Applicant
AND:	MR AMATO Respondent

order made by:	CAMPTON J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 July 2022