Pratley & Pratley (No. 2)

[2020] FamCA 940

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PRATLEY & PRATLEY (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 940

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – whether a party is wholly unsuccessful – costs in a fixed sum

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117

I & I (1995) FLC 92-625
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd & Ors, Idoport Pty Ltd v Donald Robert Argus [2007] NSWSC 23
Kohan & Kohan (1993) FLC 92-340
Medlon & Medlon (No 6) (Indemnity Costs) (2015) FLC 93-664 (Strickland J)
Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311

APPLICANT: Ms Pratley

RESPONDENT: Mr Pratley

FILE NUMBER: CAC 298 of 2019

DATE DELIVERED: 12 November 2020

PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra

PLACE HEARD: Canberra

JUDGMENT OF: Gill J

HEARING DATE: Considered in chambers

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr J Haddock

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Hijazi Curran Cameron Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr M Kearney, SC

SOLICiTOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Farrar Gesini Dunn

Orders

1. The Wife is to pay the Husband’s costs of the Application in a Case filed 8 July 2020, and of the associated costs order, fixed in the sum of $11,258.35 within 56 days of the making of this order.

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 Pratley & Pratley 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).

Family Court of Australia at Canberra

FILE NUMBER: CAC 298 of 2019

Ms Pratley

Applicant

And

Mr Pratley

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 26 August 2020 judgment was delivered in relation to an interlocutory dispute between the parties relating primarily to the disposal of various items of their property pool.

2. Central to the dispute between the parties was whether the Husband should be compelled to continue to operate a business that the parties previously operated together but which, although the Husband had initially sought to retain the business, neither now seeks to retain as part of any property adjustment.

3. Similarly, the dispute concerned the sale of properties which, again, neither party seeks to retain as part of a property adjustment.

4. The Wife also sought the provision of funds in relation to upgrading her motor vehicle.

5. Finally, the Wife sought particular orders in relation to disclosure.

The proceedings

1. The Husband filed an Application in a Case on 8 July 2020 seeking orders as set out in the annexure to this judgment.  In general terms he sought the sale of the business, with ancillary orders related to such, along with the sale of two other properties at 1 Q Street and R Street.  He further sought his costs.

2. The only point…