FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| UNDERWOOD & PRATT | [2015] FCCA 1818 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Costs – application for costs – where applicant was successful in proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – financial circumstances of the parties considered – where applicant was in receipt of legal aid – where party and party costs in accordance with Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 Sch.1 Part 1 exceed amount actually charged to Legal Aid NSW – where a party may not claim more by way of costs than actually charged. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.117 Legal Aid Commission Act 1979 (NSW), s.41 |
| Cases cited: Prantage & Prantage [2013] FamCAFC 105; (2013) 49 Fam LR 197; FLC 93-544 Underwood & Pratt [2014] FCCA 3079 Wade & McPherson [2014] FCCA 1321 |
| Applicant: | MS UNDERWOOD |
| Respondent: | MR PRATT |
| File Number: | NCC 2003 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Scarlett |
| Hearing date: | 18 March 2015 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 18 March 2015 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 30 June 2015 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitor for the Applicant: | Mr Haricharan |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Hunter Family Law Centre |
| Respondent: | In person |
ORDERS
The Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs fixed in the sum of $8,961.98.
The Respondent is allowed six (6) months to pay.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Underwood & Pratt is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
NCC 2003 of 2010
| MS UNDERWOOD |
Applicant
And
| MR PRATT |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application
This is an Application for costs made by the wife, who was the successful Applicant in parenting proceedings heard in this Court last year (Underwood & Pratt[1]). The Application is supported by an affidavit of the Applicant’s solicitor, Ms Furner, dated 11 December 2014.
[1] [2014] FCCA 3079
In her affidavit, Ms Furner deposes that her client was legally aided by Legal Aid New South Wales and annexes copies of:
a)Three grants of aid dated 17 June, 4 November and 28 November 2014;
b)Nine invoices submitted to Legal Aid NSW between 14 October and 8 December 2014.
The invoices total $8,961.98, which is clearly the amount sought from the Respondent.
The Respondent opposes the application, telling the Court that an order for costs would cause hardship to him, particularly as he was unemployed from November 2014 to February 2015.
Applications for costs in family law proceedings
Whilst costs are discretionary, that discretion must be exercised within the confines of s.117 of the Family Law Act 1975(Cth). Subsection (1) sets out the general proposition that each party to proceedings under the Act should bear his or her own costs, but s.117(2) provides that:
If, in proceedings under this Act, the court is of opinion that there are circumstances that justify it in doing so, the court may, subject to subsections (2A), (4), (4A) and (5) and the applicable Rules of Court,…
Continue reading UNDERWOOD & PRATT
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- UNDERWOOD & PRATT [2015] FCCA 1818
- Case
- [2015] FCCA 1818
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was the determination of the appropriate sum for the applicant's costs, and whether any special arrangements for payment should be made.
Judge Scarlett considered the submissions of both parties regarding the costs claimed. The court found that the sum of $8,961.98 was an appropriate amount to fix for the applicant's costs. Furthermore, the court ordered that the respondent be allowed a period of six months to satisfy this payment.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs fixed in the sum of $8,961.98.
2.
The Respondent is allowed six (6) months to pay.
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.