Somers and Somers (No.2)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOMERS & SOMERS (NO.2) [2013] FCCA 1992

Catchwords:
CHILD SUPPORT – COSTS – Application for costs – indemnity costs – whether costs should be paid on an indemnity basis – whether party who is a (omitted) is entitled to costs for appearing as a litigant in person – whether either party wholly unsuccessful – where the parties made settlement offers in writing.

Legislation:

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), ss.84, 100

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.117

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 Sch. 1 Part 2

A & D Douglas Pty Ltd v Lawyers Private Mortgages Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 690
Arundel Chiropractic Centre Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2001] HCA 26; (2001) 179 ALR 406
Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14; (1994) 179 CLR 403
Colgate Palmolive Pty Ltd v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 536; (1993) 46 FCR 225
Commonwealth Bank v Hattersley [2001] NSWSC 60
Guss v Veenhuizen (No 2) (1976) 136 CLR 47
Kohan & Kohan (1993) FLC 92-340
Laurent & Laurent [2013] FMCAfam 100
Prantage & Prantage [2013] FamCAFC 105; (2013) 49 Fam LR 197
Somers & Somers [2013] FCCA 162

Applicant: MS SOMERS

Respondent: MR SOMERS

File Number: SYC 3026 of 2008

Judgment of: Judge Scarlett

Hearing date: 5 August 2013

Date of Last Submission: 5 August 2013

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 11 November 2013

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: In person

Solicitors for the Respondent: KDB Holmes

ORDERS

1. The Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs fixed in the sum of $23,993.89.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Somers & Somers (No.2) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYC 3026 of 2008

MS SOMERS

Applicant

And

MR SOMERS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

1. This is an application for costs arising out of a decision of this Court made on 3 May 2013. As a result of that decision, an Order was made that if either party sought to press an order for costs, that party should file and serve an affidavit setting details of the costs and disbursements claimed within 28 days.

2. The Applicant filed an affidavit seeking an Order for costs in her favour on an indemnity basis in the sum of $62,609.75.

3. The application for costs is opposed by the Respondent.

Issues

1. The issues in this case are:

   a)Whether an order for costs should be made in favour of the Applicant at all;

   b)If so, whether costs should be calculated on an indemnity basis, as the Applicant claims, or on a party and party basis; and

   c)Whether the Applicant, a (omitted) by profession, is able to seek costs for acting for herself from the time that she was no longer represented.

Background

1. The proceedings commenced as an Application to enforce a child support agreement to provide support for the parties’ three children. In the alternative, the Applicant sought an order for…