Sorrensen and Sorrensen

[2017] FamCA 22

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SORRENSEN & SORRENSEN [2017] FamCA 22

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Costs order – Where the wife was wholly successful in her application for enforcement – Where the husband is ordered to pay the wife’s costs in a fixed amount

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Sorrensen

RESPONDENT: Mr Sorrensen

FILE NUMBER: BRC 8601 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 20 January 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Forrest J

HEARING DATE: Last submissions received 12 January 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Raeburn

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: MacDonnells Lawyers

THE RESPONDENT: In Person

Orders

1. That the husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to her enforcement application fixed in the sum of $15,429.25.

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 Sorrensen & Sorrensen 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 BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 8601 of 2012

Ms Sorrensen

Applicant

And

Mr Sorrensen

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 14 December 2016, I made Orders in an enforcement application brought  by the wife in these proceedings following on from final property adjustment orders made in 2015. I also determined, on the wife’s application, that I would make an order that the husband pay her costs, but deferred the fixing of the actual amount of costs that he is to pay until receipt of an itemised bill of costs calculated in accordance with the Court’s scale of costs and any further submissions the husband might want to make after he saw that itemised bill of costs.

2. I have now had the opportunity to read and consider the itemised bill of costs produced and filed by the wife’s solicitors. It represented the wife’s costs of and incidental to these enforcement proceedings, in which she has been wholly successful, according to the scale, to be $15,429.25.

3. The husband filed an affidavit in response in which he makes no express reference to any particular item set out in the bill of costs. He simply repeats an assertion, made at the previous hearing, that he should not be required to pay the wife’s costs as the wife’s solicitors were responsible for many of the delays in finalising matters pursuant to the original final orders. I have already determined that argument against the husband and in favour of the wife. I will not revisit it again.

4. I am quite satisfied that it is reasonable for the husband to pay the wife’s costs as set out in the bill of costs filed by her solicitors. I will make such an order.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Forrest delivered on 20 January 2017.

Associate: 

Date:  20 January 2017