Steele and Stanley (Costs) - [2008] FamCA 332

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STEELE & STANLEY (COSTS)

[2008] FamCA 332

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Costs inter party – whether husband should be ordered to pay wife’s costs including a claim for costs on an indemnity basis

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s117

Woodley & Time and Anor[2008] FamCA 162
Addison & Lahey (inter party costs) [2006] FamCA 1168
Colgate-Palmolive Company and Anor v Cussons Pty Limited (1993) 46 FCR 225

APPLICANT:

Ms Steele

RESPONDENT:

Mr Stanley

FILE NUMBER:

SYF

4369

2005

DATE DELIVERED:

15 May 2008

PLACE DELIVERED:

Hobart

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Benjamin J

HEARING DATE:

22 April 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:	Mr Twigg
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:	Adrian Twigg & Co.

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Christie

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Wyatt Attorneys

Orders

The husband pay 50 per cent of the wife’s costs of the property proceedings, on a party/party basis; such costs to be as and from the 14 August 2007 up to and including the date of final orders on 8 February 2008, subject to the following:-
(a) such costs are not to include the fees of the single expert in relation to the preparation of any of her expert reports and the expenses associated with her giving evidence;
(b) noting that these were complex proceedings for which the attendance of senior counsel for both parties at the hearing was certified pursuant to rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules.
The husband pay the wife’s costs, on a party/party basis, on the application for costs.
Costs payable pursuant to this order are to be as agreed between the parties or as otherwise determined under the Rules of this Court and in that regard time be extended for the filing of a Bill of Costs for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of these orders.
This application for costs is removed from the lists of cases requiring determination.
All subpoenaed documents are to be returned to the persons or institutions from which they emanated and all exhibits are to be returned to the person or persons who tendered the same.
IT IS CERTIFIED
Pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage Counsel to attend on the costs application for each of the parties.

IT IS NOTED that the publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Steele & Stanley (Costs) is approved pursuant to s121(9) (g) of the Family Law Act 1975(Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYF 4369 of 2005

Ms Steele

Applicant

And

Mr Stanley

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This is an application by the wife for costs orders against the husband arising out of the hearing of property proceedings between the parties in Sydney on the 8, 9, 10 and 26 October 2007 where judgment was delivered and final orders made by me on the 8 February 2008.
The wife’s application for costs was filed on 7 March 2008 and was…

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 Steele and Stanley (Costs)

Details

AGLC: Steele and Stanley (Costs) [2008] FamCA 332
Case: [2008] FamCA 332
Decision Date: 15 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Steele and Stanley (Costs)*, Benjamin J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application for costs following property proceedings between a husband and wife. The dispute concerned the allocation of costs incurred during the property proceedings and a subsequent application for costs.

The court was required to determine the extent to which the husband should be ordered to pay the wife's costs of the property proceedings and the costs of the application for costs. Specifically, the court had to consider whether to allow costs on a party/party basis, the period for which costs should be awarded, and whether to exclude certain expert fees. The court also needed to address the reasonableness of engaging senior counsel for the hearing and the costs application.

Benjamin J ordered that the husband pay 50 per cent of the wife's costs of the property proceedings on a party/party basis, from 14 August 2007 up to the date of final orders on 8 February 2008. However, these costs were not to include the fees and expenses of the single expert witness. The court noted that the proceedings were complex and certified the attendance of senior counsel for both parties at the hearing. The husband was also ordered to pay the wife's costs of the application for costs on a party/party basis. The court extended time for the filing of a Bill of Costs for 90 days and certified that it was reasonable to engage counsel for the costs application.

Orders

Orders of the court

The husband pay 50 per cent of the wife’s costs of the property proceedings, on a party/party basis; such costs to be as and from the 14 August 2007 up to and including the date of final orders on 8 February 2008, subject to the following:-

(a) such costs are not to include the fees of the single expert in relation to the preparation of any of her expert reports and the expenses associated with her giving evidence;

(b) noting that these were complex proceedings for which the attendance of senior counsel for both parties at the hearing was certified pursuant to rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules.

The husband pay the wife’s costs, on a party/party basis, on the application for costs.

Costs payable pursuant to this order are to be as agreed between the parties or as otherwise determined under the Rules of this Court and in that regard time be extended for the filing of a Bill of Costs for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of these orders.

This application for costs is removed from the lists of cases requiring determination.

All subpoenaed documents are to be returned to the persons or institutions from which they emanated and all exhibits are to be returned to the person or persons who tendered the same.

IT IS CERTIFIED

Pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage Counsel to attend on the costs application for each of the parties.

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.