Santoro and Santoro - [2010] FamCA 126

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SANTORO & SANTORO

[2010] FamCA 126

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application for certificates pursuant to s 10(2) and s 10(3) of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) – Application dismissed

Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth) s 39
Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) ss 10(2), 10(3)

Marsh & Marsh [2009] FMCAfam 1160
Oriana Blue Pty Ltd in the matter of Cliveden Hill Holdings Pty Ltd v Cliveden Hill Holdings Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 358
Re Palmdale Insurance Ltd and Re the Companies Ordinance 1962 [1994] ACTSC 108

APPLICANT:

Ms Santoro

RESPONDENT:

Mr Santoro

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ross A. Clarke & Associates

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

1574

2008

DATE DELIVERED:

25 February 2010

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

The Hon. Justice Watts

HEARING DATE:

9 September 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Schonell

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Karras Partners

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Richardson SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

York Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT

CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Barry

Orders

That the respective applications of the parties to these proceedings for costs certificates under the relevant provisions of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Santoro & Santoro is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 1574 of 2008

MS SANTORO

Applicant

And

MR SANTORO

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

These were respective applications by both parties to obtain costs certificates under s 10(2) and s 10(3) of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) arising from when the matter was listed for finalisation before Federal Magistrate (FM) Altobelli. As suggested by counsel, I ordered the parties to file written submissions in respect of these applications by 30 September 2009. The written submissions of the applicant husband included copies of the transcripts of the proceedings before the trial magistrate on 9 and 10 March 2009. I have had the benefit of reading those transcripts.
It is submitted by both parties that, as a consequence of the way in which the learned Federal Magistrate handled the proceedings on 9 March 2009, the proceedings were rendered nugatory and were ultimately aborted. It should be noted that the matter was transferred by FM Altobelli from the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia to the Family Court of Australia on 28 May 2009. I have now delivered an interim Judgment with respect to the parenting proceedings (see Santoro & Santoro [2009] FamCA 812).

BACKGROUND

On 26 February 2009 after hearing submissions from all parties, FM Altobelli ordered that the parenting and property settlement proceedings of the parties be split and heard separately, with the parenting hearing to commence on 9 March 2009. The matter proceeded on 9 March 2009 in circumstances revealed in the transcripts.
Late on that day, an application was made by Mr Schonell, counsel for the wife, for the learned Federal Magistrate to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Santoro and Santoro

Details

AGLC: Santoro and Santoro [2010] FamCA 126
Case: [2010] FamCA 126
Decision Date: 25 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Santoro and Santoro*, the parties sought costs certificates under the *Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981* (Cth). The specific nature of the underlying dispute between the parties is not detailed in the provided text.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the parties were entitled to costs certificates under the aforementioned Act. This required an examination of the criteria and conditions stipulated by the legislation for the issuance of such certificates.

Justice Watts dismissed the applications for costs certificates. The reasoning behind this dismissal is not elaborated upon in the provided text, but the outcome indicates that the court found the parties did not meet the necessary requirements for the issuance of the certificates. The court ordered that the respective applications of the parties for costs certificates be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the respective applications of the parties to these proceedings for costs certificates under the relevant provisions of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) be dismissed.

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.