Summerfield and Summerfield

Case [2007] FamCA 804


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SUMMERFIELD & SUMMERFIELD [2007] FamCA 804
FAMILY LAW - COSTS - Offer of settlement
FAMILY LAW - COSTS - Between parties
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Fitzgerald (as child representative for A (Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania) v Fish and Another (2005) 33 Fam LR 123
Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311
Jensen v Jensen (1982) FLC 91-263
McAlpin v McAlpin (1993) FLC 92-411
Brown v Brown (1998) FLC 92-822
APPLICANT: Mr Summerfield
RESPONDENT: Mrs Summerfield
FILE NUMBER: SYF 3067 of 2003
DATE DELIVERED: 9 August 2007
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
PLACE HEARD: Sydney
JUDGMENT OF: O'Ryan J
HEARING DATE: 3 August 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Lloyd
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Foulsham & Geddes
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Hodgson

Orders

  1. The Wife pay a portion of the Husband’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings determined by final orders made on 23 November 2006.

  2. In compliance with Order 1 hereof the Wife pay to the Husband by 4.00 pm on 9 October 2007 the sum of $100,000.

  3. The Response filed on behalf of the Wife on 18 January 2007 be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of the Honourable Justice O’Ryan delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as Summerfield & Summerfield

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYF 3067  of 2003

Mr Summerfield

Applicant

And

Mrs Summerfield

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Proceedings

  1. Before me for hearing are applications for costs of property settlement proceedings determined by final orders made on 23 November 2006.  On 7 December 2006 an application was filed by Mr Summerfield who I shall refer to as the Husband and on 18 January 2007 a response was filed by Mrs Summerfield who I shall refer to as the Wife.

  2. The Husband seeks the following:

    1. Pursuant to Part 19.3 Rule 19.08(1) of the Family Law Rules 2004, that the Wife pay the Husband’s costs of the Husband’s Application for final property settlement orders.

    2. Pursuant to Part 19.5 Rule 19.9(1)(a) and (c) of the Family Law Rules 2004 that Rule 19.18 of the Family Law Rules 2004 does not apply and that the Husband is entitled to costs of $552,424.26 to be calculated as follows:

    (a)two-thirds of the Husband’s lawyer and client professional costs inclusive of GST being the sum of $245,048.10 from 30 May 2003 to the date of the Order;

    (b)the whole of the Husband’s lawyer and client disbursements of $16,017.41 inclusive of GST from 30 May 2003 to the date of the Order;

    (c)the whole of the Husband’s expert’s fees of $119,451.00 inclusive of interest and GST from 30 May 2003 to the date of the Order;

    (d)the whole of the Husband’s liability for transcript fees in the sum of $8,051.75 inclusive of GST; and

    (e)the whole of the Husband’s counsels’ fees of $163,856.00 inclusive of GST from 30 May 2003 to the date of the Order.

  3. The Wife seeks the…

Continue reading Summerfield and Summerfield

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Summerfield and Summerfield [2007] FamCA 804
Case
[2007] FamCA 804
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Summerfield and Summerfield*, heard by O'Ryan J, the proceedings concerned an application by the Wife for costs following final orders made on 23 November 2006. The Wife had filed a Response on 18 January 2007, which was subsequently dismissed.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Wife should be ordered to pay a portion of the Husband's costs of and incidental to the proceedings. This required the court to consider the conduct of the parties in the litigation and whether it warranted a departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

O'Ryan J reasoned that the Wife's conduct in filing the Response on 18 January 2007 was unreasonable and had caused unnecessary costs to the Husband. Applying the principles of costs orders in family law matters, which allow for discretion to depart from the usual rule where a party's conduct has been vexatious or caused undue delay or expense, the court found that an order for costs against the Wife was justified.

Consequently, the court ordered that the Wife pay a portion of the Husband’s costs, specifically the sum of $100,000, to be paid by 4.00 pm on 9 October 2007. The Wife's Response filed on 18 January 2007 was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Wife pay a portion of the Husband’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings determined by final orders made on 23 November 2006.

2.

In compliance with Order 1 hereof the Wife pay to the Husband by 4.00 pm on 9 October 2007 the sum of $100,000.

3.

The Response filed on behalf of the Wife on 18 January 2007 be dismissed.

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.