RBP and Ors & DEP

[2005] FamCA 696

[2005] FamCA 696

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

IN THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY   Appeal No. of EA 28 of 2005
  File No. of CAF 741 of 2003

IN THE MATTER OF:

RBP AND EP

1^st Applicant

AND

CJS

2^nd Applicant

AND

DEP

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

EX TEMPORE

CORAM:	KAY, COLEMAN  AND MAY JJ
DATE OF HEARING:	7th day of June 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7th day of June 2005

APPEARANCES:

Mr Blank	Of counsel for the 1st Applicant
Mr Dura	Of counsel for the 2nd Applicant
Mr Elmaraazey	for the Respondent

Name of Appeal  RBP & EP & CJS & DEP
Appeal Number  EA 28/2005
Date of Appeal hearing                   7^th day of June 2005
Date of Judgment  7^th day of June 2005
Coram  Kay, Coleman, May JJ

Catchwords:   Respondents’ application for security for costs. Principles enunciated in Luadaka v Luadaka (1998) FLC 92-830, as confirmed with respect to applications for security for costs in Jones v Jones (2001) FLC 93-080, applied – accepted that appeal bona fide, however, appellant unlikely to be able to satisfy an order for costs if appeal unsuccessful and considerable difficulty likely to be encountered in enforcing such an order which would have significant adverse impact on the respondents – no evidence of “strongly arguable case on behalf of the appellant” - Pederson v Vega Lira [2003] FamCA 1383 followed. Respondent mother likely to adopt submissions of respondent paternal grandparents at hearing of the appeal. Appropriate order that appellant provide security for costs.

Security for costs ordered in favour of paternal grandparents.
Mother’s application for security for costs dismissed.
Applicant to contribute to respondent paternal grandparents’ costs.

1. These are applications for security for costs in relation to the appeal which was instituted by the father, by filing a Notice of Appeal on 21 March 2005 against orders made by Faulks DCJ on 24 February 2005. 

2. The applicants for security for costs are the respondents to such Notice of Appeal; they being the paternal grandparents and  the mother. 

3. The paternal grandparents and the mother through their counsel seek that the father provide security for costs in the terms set out by each of them in material filed in support of their applications. 

4. The proceedings before Deputy Chief Justice Faulks related to residence and contact of the child who was born in June 1999.  The reasons for judgment of the Deputy Chief Justice make clear that his Honour found the child to have lived for the bulk of his life with the paternal grandparents and to have had contact, which included substantial contact on an interim basis, with each of his natural parents pursuant to orders of the Court. 

5. Before the trial Judge there was a welfare report.  His Honour clearly saw the relevant adults cross-examined and heard submissions. 

6. The law which governs the applications is not in doubt and does not require re-stating in the context of these applications.  It has, in recent years,…