Strahan & Strahan

Case [2021] FamCAFC 167

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Strahan & Strahan [2021] FamCAFC 167

Appeal from: Strahan & Strahan [2021] FamCA 97
Appeal number(s): SOA 14 of 2021
File number(s): ADF 228 of 2005
Judgment of: AINSLIE-WALLACE, ALDRIDGE & WATTS JJ
Date of judgment: 31 August 2021
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Where the primary judge ordered that $2 million be paid into the Family Court of Australia Litigants Fund – Where the primary judge granted leave to two firms of solicitors to intervene in the proceedings as between the husband and wife over the payment of the $2 million – Where the solicitors claimed a lien over part of the fund – Where the primary judge dismissed the solicitors’ claims over the fund – Where the husband made an application for enforcement of costs orders to be paid from the fund – Where the primary judge ordered that the wife pay the costs orders from the $2 million before the fund was released to her – Where the wife appealed those orders - Where the appeal is dismissed.
Legislation:

 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4, 8, 94(2A), 105, 117(2)

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) Ch 19, Pt 20.4, rr 1.10, 19.08, 20.07(d)

Cases cited: Strahan & Strahan (No 4) [2017] FamCA 949
Division: Appeal Division
Number of paragraphs: 18
Date of hearing: 9 August 2021
Place: Sydney (via video link)
Counsel for the Appellant Mr Handran QC
Solicitors for the Appellant McInnes Wilson Lawyers
Counsel for the First Respondent Mr Wilson
Solicitors for the First Respondent Kennedy Partners
Counsel for the Second Respondents Mr Stratton-Smith
Solicitor for the Second Respondents PP Lawyers
Counsel for the Third Respondent Mr Anderson
Solicitors for the Third Respondent NF Lawyers

ORDERS

SOA 14 of 2021
ADF 228 of 2005

APPEAL DIVISION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

MS STRAHAN

Appellant
AND:

MR STRAHAN

First Respondent

PP LAWYERS PTY LTD AND MS PP

Second Respondents

NF PTY LTD

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

AINSLIE-WALLACE, ALDRIDGE & WATTS JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

31 AUGUST 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.Within 28 days of the making of this order, the appellant pay the costs of each of the respondents fixed in the following amounts:

(a)To the First Respondent $10,339.20;

(b)To the Second Respondent $11,886.59; and

(c)To the Third Respondent $4,450.96.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

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 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Strahan & Strahan has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

AINSLIE-WALLACE, ALDRIDGE & WATTS JJ:

INTRODUCTION

  1. On 23 November 2017 a judge of the…

Continue reading Strahan & Strahan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Strahan & Strahan [2021] FamCAFC 167
Case
[2021] FamCAFC 167
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this appeal were the husband and wife of Strahan & Strahan, along with two firms of solicitors who had intervened in the proceedings. The dispute centred around the payment of $2 million into the Family Court of Australia Litigants Fund. The solicitors claimed a lien over part of the fund, which the primary judge dismissed. The husband subsequently made an application for enforcement of costs orders to be paid from the fund. The primary judge ordered that the wife pay the costs orders from the $2 million before the fund was released to her, which she subsequently appealed. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the primary judge's orders were correct and whether the wife's appeal should be dismissed. The court had to consider whether the primary judge was correct in dismissing the solicitors' claims over the fund and whether the wife's appeal against the orders for costs should be dismissed. The court also had to determine whether the orders for costs were reasonable and whether the wife should be required to pay them from the fund before it was released to her.

The court's reasoning and outcome were that the primary judge's orders were correct and that the wife's appeal should be dismissed. The court found that the primary judge had correctly dismissed the solicitors' claims over the fund and that the wife's appeal against the orders for costs was without merit. The court held that the orders for costs were reasonable and that the wife should be required to pay them from the fund before it was released to her. The court also ordered that the wife pay the costs of each of the respondents.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the wife's appeal and ordered that she pay the costs of each of the respondents. The primary judge's orders were upheld, and the wife was required to pay the costs orders from the $2 million before the fund was released to her. The court found that the orders for costs were reasonable and that the wife's appeal was without merit. The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. Within 28 days of the making of this order, the appellant pay the costs of each of the respondents fixed in the following amounts:

(a) To the First Respondent $10,339.20;

(b) To the Second Respondent $11,886.59; and

(c) To the Third Respondent $4,450.96.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry 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.