Rickard and Griffin - [2011] FamCA 43

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RICKARD & GRIFFIN

[2011] FamCA 43

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Applications of husband and wife dismissed

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 404
Casley v Casely (Costs) [2010] FamCAFC 189

APPLICANT:

Mr Rickard

RESPONDENT:

Ms Griffin

FILE NUMBER:

MLF

2650

2006

DATE DELIVERED:

8 February 2011

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CRONIN

HEARING DATE:

BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED FROM

THE APPLICANT:

IN PERSON

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

HOGG AND REID

Orders

That the application of the husband by way of written submission for costs is dismissed.
That the application by the wife for the costs arising out of the orders of 24 December 2010 and 24 November 2008 are dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Rickard & Griffin is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLF 2650 of 2006

MR RICKARD

Applicant

And

MS GRIFFIN

Respondent

REASONS FOR COSTS JUDGMENT

On 24 December 2010, I made orders relating to the completion of property proceedings between the parties and that any application for costs including extant orders for reserved costs be completed by written submission.
The wife sought costs supported by a submission. The husband responded asking for an indulgence because of an illness of his father. I have given that indulgence.
I have read the submissions of both parties.
The wife sought specific costs relating to hearings on 29 January 2009, 14 April 2009 and 24 November 2008.
In respect of the hearing on 20 December 2010, she sought further costs relating to the hearing itself.
The husband responded indicating there was no basis for an order for costs to be made against him. However in paragraph 79 of his response submission he sought an order in the following terms:
The respondent pay one half of costs relevant to the preparation, delivery of no less than three (3) partially completed copies of divorce proceeding documents, preparation and filing of those documents at Dandenong and attendance by the applicant in person at that divorce hearing and with that one half determined by the application to be $600 and,
The respondent pay costs incurred by the applicant in engaging a lawyers (since dismissed) and listed as acting in early proceedings and with such costs being $26985 (sic) and,
The applicant’s reasonable costs incurred in preparation and filing of documents, research, court attendances as a (self-employed) self-represented litigant and with those costs assessed at $40 per hour and totalling $6880 and,
The applicant’s reasonable costs incurred in preparation for sale of the family home, secure storage of chattels and delivery of chattels to the respondent and with those costs assessed as totalling $3460.
Section 117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) requires that each party pay their own costs unless the Court is satisfied that there are circumstances that justify…

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 Rickard and Griffin

Details

AGLC: Rickard and Griffin [2011] FamCA 43
Case: [2011] FamCA 43
Decision Date: 8 February 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Honourable Justice Cronin considered an application concerning costs between a husband and a wife. The specific nature of the underlying dispute that led to the applications for costs is not detailed in the provided text.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the husband's application for costs, which was made by way of written submission. Additionally, the court had to consider the wife's applications for costs stemming from previous orders made on 24 December 2010 and 24 November 2008.

Justice Cronin dismissed the husband's application for costs. Similarly, the wife's applications for costs relating to the orders of 24 December 2010 and 24 November 2008 were also dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the application of the husband by way of written submission for costs is dismissed.

That the application by the wife for the costs arising out of the orders of 24 December 2010 and 24 November 2008 are dismissed.

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.