Ramon and Ramon

[2013] FamCA 722

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RAMON & RAMON [2013] FamCA 722

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – Application of husband to enforce certain Final property Orders (some varied by the Full Court) – Orders sought in respect of section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – A section 106A order not appropriate in circumstances where wife had complied with orders and no document identified for Registrar to execute

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Ramon

RESPONDENT: Ms Ramon

FILE NUMBER: PAC 2186 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 28 August 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Hannam J

HEARING DATE: 28 August 2013

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Self-represented Litigant

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms De Vere

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Mirza-Price

Coleman Greig Lawyers

Orders

1. The husband’s Application in a Case filed 15 July 2013 be dismissed.

2. The Applicant pay to the Respondent the sum of $8,750.00 to be paid within twenty-eight (28) days.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 2186 of 2009

Mr Ramon

Applicant

And

Ms Ramon

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for costs made on behalf of the Respondent in respect of an Application in a Case filed 15 July 2013, which was wholly unsuccessful.  Costs are sought on the basis that it would be just in the circumstances of this case.  It is an application which was brought, unfortunately for the Applicant, on a misconceived understanding of what enforcement proceedings are in this Court.

2. I agree with the submission that perhaps the Applicant did not understand the Response, or he was expecting something different, or that, for some reason, which I simply do not understand, that he was expecting some form of mediation proceedings.  These submissions of the Applicant have to be taken into account in light of the fact that the matter came before a Registrar and the Registrar offered the Applicant a later date.  The Response was a fairly simple one and did not need to respond any further, because it was the Respondent’s case, and as I have determined was in fact correct as the Applicant’s case simply had no merit and there was nothing to respond to, and so I have taken that into account, in effect, that the matter ended up coming on quickly for hearing in part because of the way the parties chose to deal with this matter.

3. The proceedings were not necessitated by a failure of a party to comply with previous orders of the Court, even though that’s what the Applicant was asserting, which the Court did not find.  I also take into account, and in my view, it is a significant factor that the proceedings were wholly unsuccessful so far as the Applicant is concerned.  As I have said, I agree that the application was doomed to fail and, in my view, even a short legal advice would have pointed that out.

4. There is not an offer in writing to settle the proceedings.  Essentially, the same case that was put before the Court today was enclosed in a letter to the Respondent.  The Respondent was not in any way at fault.  She had not failed to do anything.  There was nothing she could, or ought to have, or would have been capable of doing to prevent these proceedings being brought, because, as I say, they seem to have been brought on a misunderstanding by the Applicant as to what this Court is able to deliver.  So I do not regard that as an offer in writing to settle it, simply a predated letter setting out the same sort of arguments that were set out in Court today.

5. Taking all of those matters into account, I do consider that it is just for the costs sought by the Respondent, that is, the sum of $8,750, to be paid by the Applicant.  They certainly seem to be a reasonable sum considering that counsel was engaged and on short notice. 

6. In my view, what has happened in the past does not bear any relevance to this particular application and, accordingly, I make the order that the sum be paid within 28 days.

7. The orders that I make are as set out at the forefront of these reasons for Judgment.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Hannam delivered on 28 August 2013.

Associate:     

Date:              12 September 2013