RYDER & BONHAM
Case
•
[2017] FamCA 979
•1 December 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
RYDER & BONHAM [2017] FamCA 979
[2017] FamCA 979
1 December 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Ryder & Bonham*, Gill J determined parenting arrangements for the parties' two children and made orders concerning property and costs. The dispute involved an application for interim parenting orders, an application for an interim costs order, and an application for non-periodic child support.
The court was required to determine the most appropriate interim parenting orders for the children, including issues of equal shared parental responsibility, living arrangements, and time spent with each parent. Additionally, the court considered whether it was just and equitable to make an order for non-periodic child support under section 123 of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989*, taking into account voluntary payments made by a party. The court also addressed an application for an interim costs order, with specific provisions for dollar-for-dollar payments.
Gill J made orders for equal shared parental responsibility, with the children to live with the Wife and spend time with the Husband on a defined fortnightly cycle during school terms, and for specified periods during school holidays. The court also made orders regarding communication between the children and each parent, medical emergencies, and preventing denigration of a party. Regarding property, the Husband was ordered to pay mortgage payments and associated costs for two properties and for a vehicle pending further order. Crucially, the court made detailed orders concerning legal costs, requiring notification of payments into and out of lawyers' trust accounts, and mandating a dollar-for-dollar payment by the Husband to the Wife's lawyers if his legal costs exceeded $65,000. The matter was adjourned.
The court was required to determine the most appropriate interim parenting orders for the children, including issues of equal shared parental responsibility, living arrangements, and time spent with each parent. Additionally, the court considered whether it was just and equitable to make an order for non-periodic child support under section 123 of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989*, taking into account voluntary payments made by a party. The court also addressed an application for an interim costs order, with specific provisions for dollar-for-dollar payments.
Gill J made orders for equal shared parental responsibility, with the children to live with the Wife and spend time with the Husband on a defined fortnightly cycle during school terms, and for specified periods during school holidays. The court also made orders regarding communication between the children and each parent, medical emergencies, and preventing denigration of a party. Regarding property, the Husband was ordered to pay mortgage payments and associated costs for two properties and for a vehicle pending further order. Crucially, the court made detailed orders concerning legal costs, requiring notification of payments into and out of lawyers' trust accounts, and mandating a dollar-for-dollar payment by the Husband to the Wife's lawyers if his legal costs exceeded $65,000. The matter was adjourned.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Injunction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
RYDER & BONHAM [2017] FamCA 979
Most Recent Citation
De Silva & Ratnayake [2021] FedCFamC1F 347
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Atkins & Hunt And Ors
[2018] FamCA 14
De Silva & Ratnayake
[2021] FedCFamC1F 347
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
3
Paris King Investments Pty Ltd v Rayhill
[2006] NSWSC 578
Kartal & Dutsanee
[2016] FamCA 1158
Selena & Montez and Ors
[2017] FamCA 583