Rankin & Rankin (No. 3) - [2019] FamCAFC 133

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RANKIN & RANKIN (NO. 3)

[2019] FamCAFC 133

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – RE-INSTATEMENT – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – Where the appellant’s application for leave to appeal was wholly unsuccessful – Where the respondent sought fixed indemnity costs or, in the alternative, fixed party/party costs in relation to the failed application for leave to appeal – Where the respondent also sought the quantum of costs under an interlocutory order be fixed – Where the appellant agrees to pay a fixed amount to the respondent for costs under the interlocutory order – Consideration of ss 117(1) and 117(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Application for indemnity costs dismissed – Costs ordered in favour of the respondent on a party/party basis in a fixed amount.

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) Pt. 7, div 4
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 96AA, 117(1), 117(2A)

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 19.18(1)(a)

Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No. 2) (1995) 57 FCR 119; [1995] FCA 1250
Graham & Squibb (2019) FLC 93-892; [2019] FamCAFC 33
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2007] NSWSC 23
Moorcroft & Moorcroft [2017] FamCAFC 147
Rankin & Rankin [2019] FamCAFC 52
SCVG & KLD [2017] FamCAFC 95
Yunghanns v Yunghanns (2000) FLC 93-029; [2000] FamCA 681

APPELLANT:

Mr Rankin

RESPONDENT:

Ms Rankin

FILE NUMBER:

DGC

2859

2013

APPEAL NUMBER:

SOA

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

8 August 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Newcastle

PLACE HEARD:

In chambers

JUDGMENT OF:

Strickland, Kent & Austin JJ

HEARING DATE:

By way of written submissions

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

27 April 2018

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2018] FamCA 268

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Devries

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

Manby and Scott, Child Support Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Schmidt

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Tisher Liner FC Law

Orders

For the purpose of Order 6 made on 19 November 2018, with the parties’ consent, the respondent’s costs are fixed at $11,705.
The appellant shall pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal, fixed in the sum of $19,194.

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 Rankin & Rankin (No. 3) 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 MELBOURNE

Appeal Number: SOA 33 of 2018
File Number: DGC 2859 of 2013

Mr Rankin

Appellant

And

Ms Rankin

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

On 3…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rankin & Rankin (No. 3) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] FamCAFC 133
Decision Date: 8 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Rankin & Rankin (No. 3), the parties involved were the appellant and the respondent, who were engaged in a dispute concerning the costs of a legal proceeding. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary focus of the dispute was the determination of the costs associated with a specific order made in the court proceedings, as well as the costs related to an application for leave to appeal.

The court was tasked with deciding on the quantum of costs to be awarded to the respondent in relation to Order 6, which was made on 19 November 2018. Additionally, the court had to determine the costs incurred by the respondent during the application for leave to appeal. The appellant contested the amount of costs claimed by the respondent, arguing that they were excessive. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the costs were reasonable and necessary for the conduct of the proceedings.

The court examined the evidence provided by both parties and considered the nature and complexity of the proceedings, as well as the necessity and reasonableness of the costs claimed. After carefully reviewing the submissions and evidence, the court concluded that the costs claimed by the respondent were reasonable and necessary. The court fixed the respondent’s costs at $11,705 for the purpose of Order 6, and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal, fixed in the sum of $19,194. The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

For the purpose of Order 6 made on 19 November 2018, with the parties’ consent, the respondent’s costs are fixed at $11,705.

The appellant shall pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal, fixed in the sum of $19,194.

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.