QUINN & WALT - [2019] FamCA 15

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUINN & WALT

[2019] FamCA 15

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application for costs sought by the Applicant against the Respondent where the Respondent has been wholly unsuccessful in her Application for property adjustment – where the Court is satisfied circumstances exist to justify an order for costs – order made for the Respondent to contribute to the costs of the Applicant.

Family Law Act 1975, ss.117

Walt & Quinn [2018] FamCA 855

APPLICANT:

Mr Quinn

RESPONDENT:

Ms Walt

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

508

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

21 January 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Baumann J

HEARING DATE:

By written submissions

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Jenkinson

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Lawyers By The Bay

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Moreheads Lawyers

Orders

That within fourteen (14) days of the date of these Orders each party shall file and serve any further submissions as to the quantum of costs.
That in the event no further submissions are filed in accordance with Order 1 hereof, an order shall issue from chambers that the Respondent contribute the sum of $20,000 to the costs of the Applicant within ninety (90) days.

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 Quinn & Walt 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 BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 508 of 2018

Mr Quinn

Applicant

And

Ms Walt

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

On 26 October 2018 the Court delivered Reasons for its order that dismissed an Application by Ms Walt against Mr Quinn, seeking a declaration that the parties were in a de facto relationship for nearly 18 years (see Walt & Quinn [2018] FamCA 855).
As a result of the dismissal, Mr Quinn (hereafter called the “Applicant”) seeks an order for costs against Ms Walt (hereafter called the “Respondent”) on:
a)an indemnity basis totalling $36,635.59; or
b)an indemnity basis for the period commencing 29 June 2018, when an offer of settlement was made; or
c)alternately, on a party and party basis as agreed or taxed.
The Respondent opposes any order for costs and says the general rule in s.117(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”) should apply.
The principles to be applied in respect of costs is not controversial. Whilst the general rule is that each party shall pay their own costs of proceedings, if the Court is satisfied, after consideration of factors set out in s.117(2A) of the Act, that circumstances exist to justify an order for…

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 QUINN & WALT

Details

AGLC: QUINN & WALT [2019] FamCA 15
Case: [2019] FamCA 15
Decision Date: 21 January 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Quinn & Walt*, heard before Baumann J, the dispute concerned the quantum of costs to be awarded. The parties had evidently reached a resolution on the substantive issues of the case, and the court was now tasked with determining the appropriate contribution towards the applicant's legal expenses.

The central legal issue before the court was the assessment of the quantum of costs. Specifically, the court needed to determine the amount the respondent should contribute to the applicant's legal costs, in circumstances where no further submissions were to be filed by the parties.

Baumann J made orders that provided a framework for the finalisation of the costs. The court directed that each party had fourteen days to file and serve any further submissions regarding the quantum of costs. In the absence of such submissions, the court stipulated that an order would issue from chambers requiring the respondent to contribute $20,000 to the applicant's costs within ninety days. This approach allowed for party input on the quantum but also provided a definitive outcome if no further submissions were forthcoming.

Orders

Orders of the court

That within fourteen (14) days of the date of these Orders each party shall file and serve any further submissions as to the quantum of costs.

That in the event no further submissions are filed in accordance with Order 1 hereof, an order shall issue from chambers that the Respondent contribute the sum of $20,000 to the costs of the Applicant within ninety (90) days.

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.