FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| RODGERS & PISANI | [2007] FamCA 1510 |
| FAMILY LAW - SECURITY FOR COSTS – Application by the wife for security for costs in relation to an appeal instituted by the husband – Application dismissed. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – s 117 |
| Sawer and Sawer [2007] FamCA 140 Beaumont and Cross (Security for Costs) [2007] FamCA 1129 Simpson and McGuren (2005) FLC 93,223 Jones and Jones (2001) FLC 93-080 Gronow v Gronow (1979) FLC 90-716 McAlpin and McAlpin (1993) FLC 92-411 Luadaka v Luadaka (1998) FLC 92-830; 24 Fam LR 340 |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Rodgers |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Pisani |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Melanie Robb |
| FILE NUMBER: | MLF | 3306 | of | 2004 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | EA | 78 | of | 2006 |
DATE DELIVERED: | 20 December 2007 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Canberra |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Bryant CJ, Finn & Mullane JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 4 October 2007 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATES: | 20 June 2006 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2006] FamCA 536 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Ms Wearne |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Legal Aid Commission NSW |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Watkins |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: |
| COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Mr Harper |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Robb & Associates |
Orders
That the application for security for costs filed on behalf of the wife on 19 December 2006 be dismissed.
That the costs of and incidental to the application referred to in Order 1 of these orders be reserved as costs in the appeal of the husband against the orders made by the Honourable Justice Carter on 20 June 2006.
IT IS NOTED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of the Full Court delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as Rodgers & Pisani.
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
Appeal Number: EA 78 of 2006
File Number: MLF 2206 of 2004
| Ms Rodgers |
Applicant
And
| Mr Pisani |
Respondent
And
| Melanie Robb |
Independent Children’s Lawyer
Reasons for Judgment
Bryant CJ and Finn J:
This is an application by the wife, Ms Rodgers, (filed on her behalf by a solicitor with the New South Wales Legal Aid Commission) seeking orders that the husband, Mr Pisani, be required to lodge security in the sum of $3,458.65 for the costs which might be incurred on the wife’s behalf in relation to an appeal which the husband has instituted against parenting orders made by Carter J on 20 June 2006.
Background
Her Honour’s orders of 20 June 2006, which were made after a six day hearing in February and March 2006, provided that the three children of the marriage of the husband and the wife should reside with the wife, but that they would have contact with the husband from Friday afternoon to Tuesday morning each alternate weekend and from Monday afternoon to Tuesday morning in the alternate week (that is, five nights in each fortnight) and for half the school holidays.
On 20 June 2006 Carter J also delivered lengthy reasons in relation to her…
Continue reading Rodgers & Pisani
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Rodgers & Pisani [2007] FamCA 1510
- Case
- [2007] FamCA 1510
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the wife's application for security for costs should be granted.
The court dismissed the wife's application for security for costs. The costs associated with this application were reserved and will be determined as part of the costs of the husband's appeal against the original orders.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That the application for security for costs filed on behalf of the wife on 19 December 2006 be dismissed.
2.
That the costs of and incidental to the application referred to in Order 1 of these orders be reserved as costs in the appeal of the husband against the orders made by the Honourable Justice Carter on 20 June 2006.
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.