Sinna and Goen - [2017] FamCA 209

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SINNA & GOEN

[2017] FamCA 209

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application by respondent for costs at interim hearing – Application for costs as agreed or assessed – Where the applicant amended her parenting application on the day of interim hearing – Where the applicant did not press all orders sought in the amended application – Where orders made by consent were the same as orders sought by the respondent – Where the actions of the applicant rendered the hearing unnecessary – The applicant to pay the Respondent’s costs.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117

Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311
PBF as Child Representative for AF (Legal Aid Commissioner of Tasmania) & TRF & LKL (2005) 33 Fam LR 123

APPLICANT:

Ms Sinna

RESPONDENT:

Mr Goen

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid NSW Parramatta Family Law

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

5094

2016

DATE DELIVERED:

7 April 2017

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Hannam J

HEARING DATE:

10 January 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Renwick

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Watts Mccray Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Othen

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Newnhams Solicitors

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Morely

Orders

The Applicant pay the costs of the Respondent in respect of the interim proceedings on 10 January 2017 as agreed or as assessed.

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 Sinna & Goen has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(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).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 5094 of 2016

Ms Sinna

Applicant

And

Mr Goen

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This judgment concerns an oral application for costs made on behalf of the Respondent Father (‘the father’) in respect of interim parenting proceedings.
The father seeks that the Applicant Mother (‘the mother’) pay his costs as agreed or assessed in respect of the interim hearing on 10 January 2017.
The question for me to determine is whether there are circumstances that justify departing from the usual rule that each party shall bear his or her own costs.

Background

The substantive proceedings concern the parenting arrangements for a three year old girl B (“the child”).
The father, who is 42, currently lives in State C in the United States of America and the mother, who is 41, has lived on the central coast of New South Wales in Australia with the child since September 2016.
The parties met online in 2008 and between 2008 and 2010 flew between Australia and the…

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 Sinna and Goen

Details

AGLC: Sinna and Goen [2017] FamCA 209
Case: [2017] FamCA 209
Decision Date: 7 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Sinna and Goen*, the applicant sought to appeal a decision of the respondent. The proceedings concerned the costs of interim proceedings that had taken place on 10 January 2017. The specific nature of the dispute leading to these interim proceedings is not detailed in the provided text.

The central legal issue before Hannam J was the determination of costs in relation to the interim proceedings. The court was required to decide who should bear the costs of those earlier proceedings.

Hannam J ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent in respect of the interim proceedings on 10 January 2017. These costs were to be either as agreed between the parties or, failing agreement, as assessed by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Applicant pay the costs of the Respondent in respect of the interim proceedings on 10 January 2017 as agreed or as assessed.

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.