Roda & Ors & Roda & Anor (No.2) (Costs)
[2013] FamCAFC 65
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| RODA AND ORS & RODA AND ANOR (NO.2) (COSTS) | [2013] FamCAFC 65 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL ─ COSTS ─ Where each party sought a costs certificate with respect to the appeal ─ Where the appeal succeeded on an issue of principle ─ Where the Court was not of the opinion that any order for costs should be made inter partes ─ Where the Court was satisfied that it was appropriate to grant costs certificates to each party ─ Each party granted costs certificates pursuant to the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) for the costs of the appeal |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) |
| APPELLANTS: | X, Executor of the estate of the late K Roda S Roda |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Roda |
| CROSS-APPELLANT: | Mr Roda |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 2084 | of | 2007 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | EA | 30 | of | 2011 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 3 May 2013 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Coleman, Strickland and Ainslie-Wallace JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | By written submissions |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 21 February 2011 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2011] FamCA 77 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS: | Dr Hardingham QC with Mr Allen |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANTS: | Wisewould Mahony Lawyers |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Dr Birch SC with Ms Bateman |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | East Coast Family Lawyers |
| COUNSEL FOR THE CROSS-APPELLANT: | Mr Gersbach |
SOLICITOR FOR THE CROSS-APPELLANT: | Taperell Rutledge Lawyers |
Orders
There be no order for costs.
The Court grants to the Appellants and Cross-Appellant a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the Appellants and Cross-Appellant in respect of the costs incurred by the Appellants and Cross-Appellant in relation to the appeal.
The Court grants to the Respondent a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the Respondent in respect of the costs incurred by the Respondent in relation to the appeal.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Roda and Ors & Roda and Anor (No.2) (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 SYDNEY |
Appeal Number: EA 30 of 2011
File Number: SYC 2084 of 2007
| X, Executor of the estate of the late K Roda Y Roda |
Appellants
And
| Ms Roda |
Respondent
And
| Mr Roda |
Cross-Appellant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
COSTS
When the Court delivered judgment in this appeal on 11 March 2013 liberty was reserved to the parties to apply in relation to two issues. The first of those issues was with respect to the declaration and consequential order (orders 4 and 5) which the Court then made. The second was with respect to the costs of the appeal.
Sensibly in our view, no party has sought to disturb orders 4 and 5 of the orders of 11 March 2013, either within the time provided by the Court’s orders of that date or otherwise. The stay of those orders (order 6) provided for by the Court’s orders of 11 March 2013 is accordingly now dissolved, and the orders may be implemented.
In relation to the costs of the appeal, it is clear, again in our view sensibly so, from the submissions on behalf of all parties, that each party seeks a costs certificate with respect to the appeal pursuant to the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth). Although we have not been urged to do so, we record that we are not of the opinion that any order for costs should be made inter partes. We are satisfied that it is appropriate to grant costs certificates to each party. The appeal succeeded on an issue of principle. There will accordingly be an order made for the granting of costs certificates.
No party has sought to disturb the trial Judge’s reservation of costs of the proceedings at first instance to the judge finally determining the proceedings, again sensibly in our view. Those orders should and will remain in force and effect.
I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Full Court (Coleman, Strickland and Ainslie-Wallace JJ) delivered on 3 May 2013.
Associate:
Date: 03.05.2013
0
0
0