Renner & Renner

[2023] FedCFamC2F 1499

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Renner & Renner [2023] FedCFamC2F 1499

File number(s):

CAC 2077 of 2022

Judgment of:

JUDGE W J NEVILLE

Date of judgment:

14 November 2023 (oral reasons)
21 November 2023 (written reasons)

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – Costs – consideration of principle regarding award of indemnity costs – Court determined that while a costs Order should be made in the Applicant Mother’s favour the amount sought by her was either or both, in accordance with authority, an unreasonable amount, and/or unreasonably incurred especially having regard to the 11 personnel involved in an Application for costs and the duplication in charging by later-involved lawyers who “read themselves into the matter” while the principal lawyer was still involved.  

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s.117(1), 117(2A)

Cases cited:

Bouras v Grandelis (2005) 65 NSWLR 314

Candlewood Navigation Corporation Ltd v Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd [1985] 1 AC 1

Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225

EMI Records Ltd v Ian Cameron Wallace Ltd [1983] 1 Ch 59

Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311

Stephens v Stephens (2011) 44 Fam LR 117

Division:

Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs:

48

Date of last submission/s:

12 September 2023

Date of hearing:

In chambers

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Farrar Gesini Dunn

The Respondent:

Making written submissions on his own behalf

ORDERS

CAC 2077 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS RENNER

Applicant

AND:

MR RENNER

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE W J NEVILLE
DATE OF ORDER:	14 NOVEMBER 2023

ON A FINAL BASIS, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Respondent is to pay the costs of the Applicant fixed in the sum of $8,385.15 by no later than 4.00 pm on 13th January 2024.

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).

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE W J NEVILLE

Introduction

1. This matter concerns costs of family law litigation regarding a very discrete issue.  For the reasons that follow, rather more is at stake.[1]

   [1] The reasons that follow were initially delivered orally.  They have been revised from the Transcript.

2. Above all else, whatever legal principle is involved in either parenting or property matters, family law should not be regarded, let…