Stockdale and Stockdale (No.2)

[2014] FCCA 3071

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STOCKDALE & STOCKDALE (No.2) [2014] FCCA 3071

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Application for costs – whether offer not accepted by the wife was made pursuant to the Family Law Rules – Court considering offer more in the nature of a Calderbank offer – consideration of relevant issues in Calderbank cases – wife’s failure to accept offer not unreasonable – application dismissed.

Legislation:  
Family Law Act 1975, s.117(2A)(f)

Family Law Rules 2004, r.10

Stockdale & Stockdale [2014] FCCA 2359
Carey v Freehills [2013] FCA 1258

Applicant: MR STOCKDALE

Respondent: MS STOCKDALE

File Number: MLC 4599 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Burchardt

Hearing date: 12 December 2014

Date of Last Submission: 12 December 2014

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 12 December 2014

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Robinson

Solicitors for the Applicant: Mills Oakley Lawyers Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Barbayannis

Solicitors for the Respondent: Barbayannis Lawyers

ORDERS

1. All extant applications be dismissed. 

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA

AT MELBOURNE

MLC 4599 of 2013

MR STOCKDALE

Applicant

And

MS STOCKDALE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

1. This is a costs application and, as I have just indicated, I am giving an oral judgment, because I have come to a clear view, and I think the parties need finality in the matter.  It is an application for costs by the husband.  The essential point pressed is that the wife refused an offer of compromise and the result ultimately obtained was less beneficent to her than the offer that she rejected.  The application for costs has been strenuously pursued and strenuously resisted.  That was typical of the conduct of the case generally by both sides. 

2. Both sides criticised some aspects of the submissions of the other.  There are even arguments about the admissibility of some of the documents tendered with the submissions. 

3. I will start first with the terms of the judgment that has given rise to this matter.  The most substantial matter in issue in the case was when the de facto relationship between the parties first began.  The wife said 2005.  The husband said 2009.  I will read paragraphs 2-6 of my judgment (Stockdale & Stockdale [2014] FCCA 2359):

   “2.    A very significant amount of the time spent in court, and the parties’ materials as filed, was directed to establishing whether the parties first commenced their relationship as a de facto couple in early 2005 (wife’s version) or early 2009 (husband’s version). 

   3.    The reason for this concentration was the fact that the husband, on any view of the matter, amassed very considerable personal wealth in the years 2005 to 2009. 

   4.    The wife seeks distribution of the property pool 40 per cent to her and 60 per cent to the husband.  The husband says that the wife’s best case on…