Theodorou and Theodorou (No 2)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THEODOROU & THEODOROU (NO. 2) [2020] FamCA 729

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where applications for costs made by both the applicant husband and the respondent wife – Where consideration of applicable principles –
Where costs applications dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 19.18

Anison & Anison [2019] FamCAFC 108; (2019) FLC 93-908
Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 135 ALR 160
Bele & Vaughan (Costs) [2012] FamCAFC 198
Collins and Collins (1985) FLC 91-603
Greedy and Greedy (1982) FLC 91-250
Hawkins & Roe [2012] FamCAFC 77
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2007] NSWSC 23
Lenova & Lenova (Costs) [2011] FamCAFC 141
Luadaka v Luadaka (1998) FLC 92-830
Parke & the Estate of the Late A Parke (2016) FLC 93-748
Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311
Phillips & Hansford [2020] FamCAFC 28; (2020) FLC 93-941
Theodorou & Theodorou [2020] FamCA 251

APPLICANT: Mr Theodorou

RESPONDENT: Ms Theodorou

FILE NUMBER: PAC 5644 of 2018

DATE DELIVERED: 3 September 2020

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Foster J

HEARING DATE: By way of written submissions last received 18 August 2020

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: York Law Family Law Specialists

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Watts McCray

Orders

1. That the parties’ applications for costs be dismissed.

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

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

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 r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 5644 of 2018

Mr Theodorou

Applicant

And

Ms Theodorou

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 17 April 2020 the Court made final orders as to property following a three‑day defended hearing as between the primary applicant wife and the primary respondent husband.

2. Those orders were as follows:

   (1)That within four months from the date of these orders the wife pay to the husband the sum of  $705,000 and in consideration of such payment the husband do all things necessary to transfer all his interest in the property at F Street, Suburb G (“the Suburb G property”) to the wife.

   (2)That in default of the wife complying with Order 1 by the due or a later date agreed to by the husband and wife in writing, then the husband and wife shall forthwith do all things necessary to sell the said property at the best price reasonably obtainable and pay the net proceeds of sale such as to effect an overall division of the asset pool as…