ROTHMAN & ROTHMAN (No.2)

[2015] FCCA 1451

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ROTHMAN & ROTHMAN (No.2) [2015] FCCA 1451

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Costs.

Legislation:  

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.177

Applicant: MR ROTHMAN

Respondent: MS ROTHMAN

File Number: DGC 1390 of 2011

Judgment of: Judge Phipps

Hearing date: 16 January 2015

Date of Last Submission: 16 January 2015

Delivered at: Dandenong

Delivered on: 16 January 2015

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: Appearing on their own behalf

The Respondent: Appearing on their own behalf

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Mr O’Connell

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Mccormack & Co Solicitors

ORDERS

1. No Order as to costs.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Rothman & Rothman (No.2) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA

AT DANDENONG

DGC 1390 of 2011

MR ROTHMAN

Applicant

And

MS ROTHMAN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from Transcript)

1. At the delivery of judgment, the husband, Mr Rothman, has not appeared personally. His mother, the paternal grandmother, has attended; I am treating her as acting as a McKenzie friend allowing her to make some submissions. She has applied for an order for costs on behalf of her son, the applicant husband in this case. It is not an appropriate case for costs. Costs are dealt with in s.117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Subsection (1) provides that:

   In proceedings under the Act, each party bears their own costs. 

   Subsection (2) gives the Court the power to make another order other than that each party bear their own costs.  Subsection (2)(a) contains the matters the court must take into account in determining whether there should be an order for costs. 

2. What is put on behalf of the husband here is that the husband has been put to costs at times when he employed a lawyer.  It is alleged that the wife has told untruths and that she moved to Queensland when she said she would not. Those matters are all dealt with in the reasons for judgment and they do not give rise to any basis for making an order for costs.  They would need to arise under any other matter under subsection (2)(a). In this case they are not relevant to the question of costs. 

3. This was a case where there were genuine issues to be heard.  There were two major issues.  Whether the wife could remain living in Queensland with the children or whether she should return the children and so herself to Victoria. I have found that she should remain in Queensland.  She has been successful on that significant issue.  There were two other issues. One was parental responsibility.  The wife’s proposal was that she should have sole parental responsibility, and she has been successful on that issue.  The other is whether there should be any unsupervised time immediately. The wife has been successful on that issue.  There is no basis for making any order for costs. 

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Phipps

Date:  16 January 2015