FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Vang & Chung (No 14) [2025] FedCFamC1F 399
File number: SYC 1433 of 2020 Judgment of: CHRISTIE J Date of judgment: 18 June 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where both the first respondent husband and the second respondent seek costs following a final property hearing – Where wife was wholly unsuccessful at final hearing – Where wife was also wholly unsuccessful in numerous interlocutory applications – Where the conduct of the wife greatly lengthened proceedings – Where husband seeks costs on an indemnity basis – Where the wife's application, whilst unsuccessful, cannot be described as having no chance of success at the outset of proceedings – Held that the wife pay both the first and second respondents’ costs on a party/party basis. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 12
Cases cited: Colgate-Palmolive v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 119 CLR 118; [1993] FCA 801
Fitzgerald (as child representative for A (Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania)) v Fish (2005) 33 Fam LR 123
Vang & Chung (No 13) [2025] FedCFamC1F 233
InterTan Inc v DSE (Holdings) Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 54
MCG Group Pty Ltd v Ftrus Pty Ltd (Formerly Fortrus Pty Ltd) [2017] FCA 359
Medlon & Medlon (No 6) (Indemnity Costs) (2015) FLC 93- 644
Munday v Bowman (1997) FLC 92-784
Ragata Developments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1993) 217 ALR 175
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 43 Date of last submission/s: 16 May 2025 Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Place: Sydney (in Chambers) The Applicant: Litigant in person Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms Tabbernor Solicitor for the First Respondent: Broun Abrahams Burreket Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Mangioni Biggs + Co ORDERS
SYC 1433 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS VANG
Applicant
AND: MR CHUNG
First Respondent
MR D
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
CHRISTIE J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 JUNE 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The wife pay the husband’s costs fixed in the sum of $330,000 such sum to be paid within 28 days.
2.The wife pay the costs of the second respondent, Mr D, in the sum of $270,811.61 such sum to be paid within 28 days.
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).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family…
Continue reading Vang & Chung (No 14)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Vang & Chung (No 14) [2025] FedCFamC1F 399
- Case
- [2025] FedCFamC1F 399
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide whether to grant the costs applications, considering the wife's unsuccessful litigation and the significant prolongation of proceedings due to her conduct. The court noted that the wife's applications, although unsuccessful, were not frivolous at the outset. The judge considered the financial circumstances of all parties, including the wife's modest assets and the husband's access to his family's financial resources. The court found that the wife's conduct had indeed led to additional legal costs and that her financial situation did not preclude the making of a costs order.
The court ruled that the wife should pay both respondents' costs on a party/party basis, reflecting the broad discretion conferred by the Act and the Rules. The judge fixed the husband's costs at $330,000 and the second respondent's costs at $270,811.61, to be paid within 28 days. The decision emphasised the importance of considering the impact of a party's conduct on the length and expense of litigation, while also taking into account the financial realities of all involved.
The final orders of the court directed that Ms Vang pay Mr Chung's costs in the sum of $330,000 and Mr D's costs in the sum of $270,811.61, both payable within 28 days. The form of the order was subject to review for minor errors or variations as per the relevant rules.
Orders
Orders of the court
SYC 1433 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:
MS VANG
Applicant
AND:
MR CHUNG
First Respondent
MR D
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
CHRISTIE J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 JUNE 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The wife pay the husband’s costs fixed in the sum of $330,000 such sum to be paid within 28 days.
2. The wife pay the costs of the second respondent, Mr D, in the sum of $270,811.61 such sum to be paid within 28 days.
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).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
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
The provisions of the Act and the Rules confer a broad discretion on a judge hearing and determining a costs application.CONSIDERATION I will deal with the husband’s application for costs first. There is no question, having regard to the conclusions reached in the property adjustment proceedings between the parties, that the respondent wife has been wholly unsuccessful in the property adjustment proceedings. While the existence of a factor in s 117(2A) will not necessitate the making of a costs order it will enliven the jurisdiction to consider departure from the usual rule. The applicant husband has identified that the respondent wife was also wholly unsuccessful in 23 of the 26 interlocutory applications which she has brought since June 2023 – with costs being ordered in only two of those applications. In addition, the husband relies upon the provisions of s117(2A)(c), contending that the wife’s conduct of the proceedings has been productive of additional legal fees. I accept that to have been the case. The wife submits that I should have regard to her financial circumstances when determining this application and I do. I accept that she has modest assets but this is not a bar to the making of a costs order. In that regard I must also have regard to the conclusions which I reached about the husband’s financial position – namely that he also has modest means, albeit he has been able to rely on the strong financial position of his parents both to fund his participation in the proceedings and his living expenses. The wife is already significantly indebted to the husband by reason of the making of costs orders as follows:(a)$9,194.07 ordered 29 February 2024 when her appeal was withdrawn;(b)$15,000 ordered 30 October 2024;(c)$10,000 ordered 20 December 2024;(d)$4,500 ordered 16 October 2024 (the stay against which ended on the making of final orders);(e)$15,615.50 ordered 26 March 2025; and(f)$2,000 ordered 26 March 2025. The husband has received $3,750 in respect of the above costs. I also take into account outstanding costs orders made in favour of the second respondent (and a subpoenaed party) when considering the wife’s financial position. I am asked to consider the husband’s application in two specific periods:(a)From the filing of the application until the date on which the husband’s offer of settlement expired (26 March 2021);(b)From the expiration date of the offer until the date of determination. The husband seeks his costs of the first period be ordered in a fixed sum ($15,000). He says that he is unable to calculate the actual costs but says that he estimates that based on a costs notice that those fees were about $57,159 and he seeks 30%. For the period from 26 March 2021 the husband seeks his costs of $642,715.5 on an indemnity basis (and in the alternative on a party/party basis) fixed in the sum of $330,000 (inclusive of the $15,000). The wife raises two main issues in submissions filed in opposition to the making of costs orders – namely the merits of her original case and the disparity between the financial position of the husband (by reason of his access to his family’s money). Having heard and determined the property adjustment case and rejected the case on behalf of the wife I am not persuaded that her restatement of it in opposition to a costs order is relevant. I accept that her financial position is not strong. However, as previously stated, even impecuniosity is not a bar to the making of a costs order.