Rohnan and Rohnan

The Federal Magistrates Court was called upon to decide an application made by Ms Rohnan seeking various property and maintenance orders on a final and interim basis against her former husband, Mr Rohnan. The husband opposed the application and sought the summary dismissal of the wife’s application. The wife also requested an adjournment on the basis that she was unable to raise sufficient funds to be properly represented and was engaged in child support proceedings with the United Kingdom Child Support Agency. The husband argued against the adjournment on the basis that the wife had been formerly represented by a specialised family law firm until recently and that there was no proper evidence that supported an assertion that she could not afford proper legal representation. The husband also argued that the wife was currently holidaying with her partner and children in Portugal and that he had no knowledge of any child support proceedings currently in the United Kingdom. The court refused the wife’s application for an adjournment and found that the husband should be at liberty to proceed with his summary dismissal action.

The court considered the wife’s application and found that she had failed to prosecute her claim vigorously, had shown further disrespect to the court by not attending today’s hearing, and there was evidence before the court that the wife was presently holidaying with her family. The court found that based on the evidence before it, the wife’s application was doomed to fail because she had not adequately explained her reasons for delaying the commencement of these proceedings or demonstrated hardship. Consequently, the wife’s application filed on 7 April 2010 was dismissed. The husband sought costs on an indemnity basis.

The court considered the husband’s costs application and found that it was appropriate to make an order for costs in favour of the husband. The court found that the wife had failed to attend or obtain any appropriate legal representation on two occasions and had been wholly unsuccessful in these proceedings. The court found that the circumstances in this case did not fall into the exceptional category which would justify costs being awarded on the basis other than party/party. Consequently, the husband’s costs were to be calculated in accordance with schedule 1 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules. Following submissions from counsel, the court allowed the husband’s costs in the sum of $5950. The court gave the wife three (3) months to pay the costs referred to in this order.