SCVG and KLD (No 2)
Case
•
[2017] FamCA 721
•18 August 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
SCVG and KLD (No 2) [2017] FamCA 721
[2017] FamCA 721
18 August 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of SCVG and KLD (No 2), Gill J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application filed by Mr SCVG on 4 August 2017. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed, but the orders indicate it involved an application for review under Rule 19.54 of the Family Law Rules and a related application in a case.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant Mr SCVG leave to file an application for review pursuant to Rule 19.54 of the Family Law Rules. The Court also had to determine the disposition of the application in a case filed by Mr SCVG and the costs associated with these proceedings.
Gill J dismissed Mr SCVG's application in a case filed on 4 August 2017. However, the Court granted Mr SCVG leave to file an application for review under Rule 19.54 of the Family Law Rules, provided it was filed by 4pm on 21 August 2017 and strictly complied with the Rules. The costs of the respondent to the dismissed application were reserved, to be dealt with either upon the determination of the application for leave to file the review application or following the determination of any such review if leave were granted. These reserved costs were to be addressed as part of any review of assessment or, if no review was filed, could be dealt with upon relisting at the request of Ms KLD.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant Mr SCVG leave to file an application for review pursuant to Rule 19.54 of the Family Law Rules. The Court also had to determine the disposition of the application in a case filed by Mr SCVG and the costs associated with these proceedings.
Gill J dismissed Mr SCVG's application in a case filed on 4 August 2017. However, the Court granted Mr SCVG leave to file an application for review under Rule 19.54 of the Family Law Rules, provided it was filed by 4pm on 21 August 2017 and strictly complied with the Rules. The costs of the respondent to the dismissed application were reserved, to be dealt with either upon the determination of the application for leave to file the review application or following the determination of any such review if leave were granted. These reserved costs were to be addressed as part of any review of assessment or, if no review was filed, could be dealt with upon relisting at the request of Ms KLD.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
SCVG and KLD (No 2) [2017] FamCA 721
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0