Legal Research
Cases
Redmond & Redmond (Costs)

Redmond & Redmond (Costs)

Case [2014] FamCAFC 55 4 April 2014

Type to search within this case.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REDMOND & REDMOND AND ANOR (COSTS)

[2014] FamCAFC 55

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – heard by way of submissions – offer of settlement – where an offer of settlement was not accepted – where one party was not wholly unsuccessful – whether circumstance warrant an order for costs – where the circumstances warrant an order for costs.

Child Support Act 1988 (Cth)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth)

Bele & Vaughan (Costs) [2012] FamCAFC 198
Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403
Guss v Veenhuizen (No. 2) (1976) 136 CLR 47
Khera v Jones [2006] NSWCA 85
The London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley, Crawford and Chester (“Chorley’s Case”) (1884) 13 QBD 872
Worchild v Petersen [2008] QCA 26

APPELLANT:

Mr Redmond

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Ms Redmond

SECOND RESPONDENT

Firm Y

APPEAL NUMBERS:

NA 62 of 2012
NA 97 of 2012

FILE NUMBER:

BRC 4493 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED:

4 April 2014

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

DATE HEARD:

By way of written submissions

JUDGMENT OF:

May, Ainslie-Wallace and Kent JJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Magistrates Court

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

10 July 2012

22 November 2012

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2012] FMCAfam 681
[2012] FMCAfam 1306

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED FROM:

THE APPELLANT:

Mr Redmond

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Ms Redmond

SECOND RESPONDENT

Firm Y

Orders

NA 62 of 2012

Save and except for any costs directly relating to the appeal against order 3 of the orders made on 10 July 2012, the husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on an indemnity basis.
Save and except for any costs directly relating to the appeal against order 3 of the orders made on 10 July 2012, the husband pay Firm Y’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on an indemnity basis.

NA 97 of 2012

The husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on an indemnity basis.
The husband pay Firm Y’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on an indemnity basis.

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

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

Appeal Numbers: NA 62 and NA97 of 2012
File Number: BRC 4493 of 2011

Mr Redmond

Appellant

and

Ms Redmond

First Respondent

and

Firm Y

Second Respondent in Appeals NA 62 of 2012 and NA 97 of 2012

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

on costs application

This is an application for costs orders against the husband, Mr Redmond consequent on the Full Court’s determination of two of four appeals brought by him. The two other appeals, NA 47 and NA 89 of 2012, were brought against orders made by Federal Magistrate Coates (as he then was) in respect of child support. Those orders were made…

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 Redmond & Redmond (Costs)

Details

AGLC: Redmond & Redmond (Costs) [2014] FamCAFC 55
Case: [2014] FamCAFC 55
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerns two of the four appeals brought by Mr Redmond against orders made in the Federal Magistrates Court in relation to child support and property settlement proceedings. The wife, Ms Redmond, and Firm Y, the wife’s solicitors, are respondents to the appeals, NA 62 and NA 97 of 2012. They seek an order for costs against the husband. The husband opposes the making of any costs order. The Full Court found that the husband was substantially unsuccessful in the appeals and that he rejected offers of settlement. The Full Court concluded that there were circumstances which justified an order for costs in favour of the wife and the solicitors. The Full Court also concluded that the husband should be ordered to pay the wife’s and the solicitors’ costs of and incidental to the appeal on an indemnity basis. The Full Court orders that the husband pay the wife’s and the solicitors’ costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on an indemnity basis, save and except for any costs directly relating to the appeal against order 3 of the orders made on 10 July 2012.

Orders