Raymond & Raymond (No 2) - [2024] FedCFamC1A 92

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Raymond & Raymond (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1A 92

Appeal from: Raymond & Raymond [2023] FedCFamC2F 1396

Appeal number: NAA 316 of 2023

File number: NCC 838 of 2023

Judgment of: AUSTIN J

Date of judgment: 29 May 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Written submissions on the issue of costs – Where the appeal succeeded on one ground of many pleaded grounds – Where the appellant seeks the grant of costs certificates to the parties – Where the respondent seeks party/party costs of the appeal – Where the respondent made an offer in writing to concede the appeal on the single ground upon which it succeeded – Where many grounds were pursued without merit – Where the appellant is in a stronger financial position than the respondent – Where the appellant shall pay a proportion of the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal in a fixed sum – Where the appellant’s application for costs certificates fails.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117

Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) s 9

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules2021 (Cth) r 12.17

Cases cited:
Conrad & Conrad (2020) 61 Fam LR 301; [2020] FamCAFC 225

Pennisi & Pennisi (1997) FLC 92-774

Number of paragraphs: 19

Date of last submission/s: 20 May 2024

Date of hearing: Determined in chambers on the papers

Solicitor for the Appellant: CopperTree Family Law

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Bithrey

Solicitor for the Respondent: Seton Family Lawyers
ORDERS

NAA 316 of 2023
NCC 838 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:
MR RAYMOND

Appellant

AND:
MS RAYMOND

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

AUSTIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

29 MAY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appellant shall pay a proportion of the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, fixed in the sum of $10,000.
2.Otherwise:
(a)the Application in an Appeal filed by the respondent on 26 April 2024 is dismissed; and
(b)the Application in an Appeal filed by the appellant on 29 April 2024 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).
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Raymond & Raymond (No 2) has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AUSTIN J:

On 28 March 2024, this appeal was determined between the parties.
The appeal succeeded, but only on a single ground of many. The parties’ costs of the appeal were reserved…

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 Raymond & Raymond (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Raymond & Raymond (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1A 92
Case: [2024] FedCFamC1A 92
Decision Date: 29 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Division 1 Appellate Jurisdiction, dealt with an appeal between Mr Raymond and Ms Raymond, primarily focusing on the issue of costs incurred during the appeal. Mr Raymond, the appellant, sought the grant of costs certificates to both parties while Ms Raymond, the respondent, requested party/party costs of the appeal. The respondent also made an offer in writing to concede the appeal on the single ground upon which it succeeded, and argued that the appellant pursued many grounds without merit. The court was required to decide whether the appellant should be granted costs certificates or if the respondent should be awarded party/party costs of the appeal, considering the financial positions of both parties and the merit of the grounds pursued.

The court examined the nature of the appeal and the grounds presented by both parties. It was noted that the appeal succeeded on one ground, while many others were pursued without merit. The respondent's offer to concede the appeal on the successful ground was taken into account, as well as the financial disparity between the parties. The court reasoned that the appellant, being in a stronger financial position, should contribute to the respondent's costs of the appeal. The court dismissed the appellant's application for costs certificates and instead ordered the appellant to pay a proportion of the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal in a fixed sum of $10,000.

In summary, the court dismissed both the appellant's and respondent's applications for costs but ordered the appellant to pay a fixed sum of $10,000 towards the respondent's costs of the appeal. The court's decision was based on the merit of the grounds pursued and the financial positions of the parties. This order ensures that the respondent receives some financial compensation for the costs incurred during the appeal, while also acknowledging the appellant's stronger financial position.

Orders

Orders of the court

NAA 316 of 2023

NCC 838 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MR RAYMOND

Appellant

AND:

MS RAYMOND

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

AUSTIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

29 MAY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appellant shall pay a proportion of the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, fixed in the sum of $10,000.

2. Otherwise:

(a) the Application in an Appeal filed by the respondent on 26 April 2024 is dismissed; and

(b) the Application in an Appeal filed by the appellant on 29 April 2024 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).

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.

NAA 316 of 2023 NCC 838 of 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:	MR RAYMOND Appellant
AND:	MS RAYMOND Respondent

Appeal from:	Raymond & Raymond [2023] FedCFamC2F 1396
Appeal number:	NAA 316 of 2023
File number:	NCC 838 of 2023
Judgment of:	AUSTIN J
Date of judgment:	29 May 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Written submissions on the issue of costs – Where the appeal succeeded on one ground of many pleaded grounds – Where the appellant seeks the grant of costs certificates to the parties – Where the respondent seeks party/party costs of the appeal – Where the respondent made an offer in writing to concede the appeal on the single ground upon which it succeeded – Where many grounds were pursued without merit – Where the appellant is in a stronger financial position than the respondent – Where the appellant shall pay a proportion of the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal in a fixed sum – Where the appellant’s application for costs certificates fails.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117 Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) s 9 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules2021 (Cth) r 12.17
Cases cited:	Conrad & Conrad (2020) 61 Fam LR 301; [2020] FamCAFC 225 Pennisi & Pennisi (1997) FLC 92-774
Number of paragraphs:	19
Date of last submission/s:	20 May 2024
Date of hearing:	Determined in chambers on the papers
Solicitor for the Appellant:	CopperTree Family Law
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Bithrey
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Seton Family Lawyers

ORDER MADE BY:	AUSTIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	29 MAY 2024