Suris & Suris (No 2) - [2022] FedCFamC1A 45

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Suris & Suris (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1A 45

Appeal from: Suris & Suris [2021] FedCFamC1F 1

Appeal number(s): NAA 27 of 2021

File number(s): BRC 1193 of 2019

Judgment of: ALDRIDGE, BENNETT & HOWARD JJ

Date of judgment: 31 March 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Discontinued appeal – Where the appellant challenged the quantum of costs sought by the respondent – Where the amount sought by the respondent is justified in the circumstances –
Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs in a fixed sum.

Cases cited: Suris & Suris [2022] FedCFamC1A 43

Number of paragraphs: 18

Date of hearing: 31 March 2022

Place: Brisbane (via video link)

Solicitor for the Appellant: Lillas & Loel Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Baston

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ogge Law

ORDERS

NAA 27 of 2021
BRC 1193 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:
MR SURIS

Appellant

AND:
MS SURIS

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

ALDRIDGE, BENNETT & HOWARD JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

31 MARCH 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $8,042.99 within three months of the date of these orders.

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 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Suris & Suris (No 2) has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ALDRIDGE J:

On 30 September 2021, Mr Suris (“the appellant”) filed a Notice of Appeal against orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1). An Amended Notice of Appeal was filed on 16 November 2021.
On 30 March 2022, the day before the appeal was scheduled to be heard, the appellant filed a Notice of Discontinuance. Ms Suris (“the respondent”) seeks an order that the appellant pay her costs of the appeal.
The orders made by the primary judge concerned both property and parenting. There was no appeal against the parenting orders. The appeal was against the primary judge’s dismissal of the appellant’s application to set aside consent property orders made by a registrar on 26 July 2019.
On 15 November 2021, an appeal registrar made a number of orders to prepare the appeal for hearing. The appellant was required to file and serve a Summary of Argument and List of Authorities by 21 January 2022. He did not do so.
The appeal registrar informed the appellant on 1 March 2022…

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 Suris & Suris (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Suris & Suris (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1A 45
Case: [2022] FedCFamC1A 45
Decision Date: 31 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Suris & Suris (No 2) involved a challenge by the appellant, Mr Suris, against the quantum of costs sought by the respondent, Ms Suris, in family law proceedings. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia's Division 1 Appellate Jurisdiction. The appeal sought to contest the amount of costs the respondent had requested, which was deemed justified by the Court.

The legal issues before the court included whether the costs claimed by Ms Suris were appropriate and reasonable given the circumstances of the case. The court had to assess the proportionality of the costs to the proceedings and the efforts expended by both parties. The appellant argued that the costs claimed were excessive, while the respondent maintained that the amount was necessary and justified.

In its judgment, the court determined that the costs claimed by Ms Suris were justified. The court found that the amount requested was reasonable in the context of the proceedings. The court emphasised the need for proportionality in the costs and took into account the efforts and resources expended by both parties. As a result, the appeal was discontinued, and the court ordered that Mr Suris pay the respondent’s costs in a fixed sum of $8,042.99 within three months of the date of the orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

NAA 27 of 2021

BRC 1193 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MR SURIS

Appellant

AND:

MS SURIS

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

ALDRIDGE, BENNETT & HOWARD JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

31 MARCH 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $8,042.99 within three months of the date of these orders.

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 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

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.

NAA 27 of 2021 BRC 1193 of 2019
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:	MR SURIS Appellant
AND:	MS SURIS Respondent

Appeal from:		Suris & Suris [2021] FedCFamC1F 1
Appeal number(s):		NAA 27 of 2021
File number(s):	BRC 1193 of 2019
Judgment of:	ALDRIDGE, BENNETT & HOWARD JJ
Date of judgment:	31 March 2022
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Discontinued appeal – Where the appellant challenged the quantum of costs sought by the respondent – Where the amount sought by the respondent is justified in the circumstances – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs in a fixed sum.
Cases cited:	Suris & Suris [2022] FedCFamC1A 43
Number of paragraphs:	18
Date of hearing:	31 March 2022
Place:	Brisbane (via video link)
Solicitor for the Appellant:		Lillas & Loel Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:		Mr Baston
Solicitor for the Respondent:		Ogge Law

ORDER MADE BY:	ALDRIDGE, BENNETT & HOWARD JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	31 MARCH 2022