FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SFAKIANAKIS & SFAKIANAKIS | [2019] FamCAFC 54 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Special costs order – Application for indemnity costs – Where the appeal was wholly unsuccessful – Offers of compromise – Conduct of the proceedings – Where the appellant abandoned much of his case on the day of the appeal – Where the appellant’s original Summary of Argument contained outlandish, indefensible and reckless submissions – Where the respondent has failed to comply with r 22.53(3) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – Where the circumstances warrant a special costs order – Order for costs in a fixed sum. |
| Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 38 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 22.53(3) |
| Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225; [1993] FCA 801 D & D (Costs) (No. 2) (2010) FLC 93-435; [2010] FamCAFC 64 Kohan and Kohan (1993) FLC 92-340; [1992] FamCA 116 Limousin v Limousin (Costs) (2007) 38 Fam LR 478; [2007] FamCA 1178 |
| APPELLANT: | Mr Sfakianakis |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Sfakianakis |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 4232 | of | 2015 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | EA | 21 | of | 2018 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 28 March 2019 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | In chambers |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Aldridge, Watts & Austin JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | Heard by way of written submissions |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 22 December 2017 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2017] FamCA 1103 |
REPRESENTATION
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: | HAL Lawyers |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Nagle |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | McNally Jones Staff Lawyers |
Orders
The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $17,500.00.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Sfakianakis & Sfakianakis has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
| THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
Appeal Number: EA 21 of 2018
File Number: SYC 4232 of 2015
| Mr Sfakianakis |
Appellant
And
| Ms Sfakianakis |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 21 September 2018, we dismissed the appeal in these proceedings and ordered Ms Sfakianakis (“the respondent”) to notify Mr Sfakianakis (“the appellant”) and any other relevant person in writing of the nature of the costs orders she intended to seek against him or them and to then notify the Appeals Registrar she had done so.
On 8 November 2018, the respondent filed written submissions concerning her entitlement to costs, together with an affidavit adducing evidence of an offer of compromise she made to the appellant in April 2018 to settle the appeal, which…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Sfakianakis & Sfakianakis and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] FamCAFC 54
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issues before the court were the appropriateness of the spousal maintenance award and the fairness of the property settlement. The appellants contended that the primary judge had misapplied the statutory principles of section 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975, which governs the assessment of spousal maintenance. They argued that the primary judge had not adequately considered the contributions made by each party and had failed to exercise the discretion conferred by the statute appropriately. Additionally, the appellants asserted that the property settlement was disproportionate, particularly in light of the contributions made by each party.
The court found that the primary judge had correctly applied the statutory principles and had exercised their discretion reasonably. The judge considered the contributions of both parties, as well as the needs of the respondent and the capacity of the appellants to provide maintenance. The court held that the award of spousal maintenance was neither excessive nor inadequate and that the property settlement was fair, taking into account all relevant factors. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original orders of the Family Court were affirmed.
The orders of the court included that the appellants were to pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $17,500.00, subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records. The form of the order is subject to formal entry in the Court’s records.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $17,500.00.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
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.