VANCE & MEADOWS

[2012] FMCAfam 1069

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VANCE & MEADOWS [2012] FMCAfam 1069

FAMILY LAW – Property – costs – security for costs – application for order that respondent provide security for costs – consideration of the conduct of the case by the substantive applicant – whether an order for security for costs would stifle the case – consideration of the strength of the substantive case.

Family Law Act 1975, ss.90SM, 117
Family Law Rules 2004, rr.19.05, 19.06
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, rr.13.03C, 16.05, 21.1

Lindon v Commonwealth (No.2) [1996] HCA 14; (1996) 136 ALR 251; 70 ALJR 541
Meadows & Vance [2011] FMCAfam 1163

Applicant: MR VANCE

Respondent: MS MEADOWS

File Number: SYC 1466 of 2011

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

Hearing date: 13 August 2012

Date of Last Submission: 13 August 2012

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 10 October 2012

REPRESENTATION

Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Finlay

Solicitors for the Applicant: Cleary Finlay Solicitors

Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent appeared in person

Solicitors for the Respondent: No solicitor on the record

ORDERS

1. The Application in a Case filed on 8 March 2012 is dismissed.

2. The Applicant and the Respondent are directed to attend a Conciliation Conference with a Registrar on a date to be fixed by the Court.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Vance & Meadows is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYC 1466 of 2011

MR VANCE

Applicant

And

MS MEADOWS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

1. This is an Application by the Respondent to a property application that the substantive Applicant, the Respondent to this Application, provide security for costs in the sum of $10,000.00 and that the substantive application should be stayed pending the provision of that security. It is also sought that if the security is not provided within six months then the substantive application for a property order should be dismissed with costs.

2. The Respondent to this Application has filed a Response, seeking an order that the Application be dismissed with costs.

Grounds

1. The Applicant relies on his affidavits sworn on 5^th March and 16^th May 2012, and an affidavit of Mr S, sworn on 10^th May 2012. The bases for his claim are:

   a)the way that Ms Meadows has conducted the matter to date;

   b)the poor prospects of success of her property application; and

   c)his limited income and assets.

2. Ms Meadows relies on two affidavits, each sworn or affirmed on 27^th March 2012 in support of her Response seeking that the application for security for costs should be dismissed with costs. The thrust of her affidavits goes to her claim that she has a property application that should be determined and that she has few funds.

The relevant Law

1. Mr Vance refers in his Application in a Case to Rules 19.05 and 19.06 of the Family Law Rules 2004. Whilst applications for security for costs in…