Vincenzo and Vincenzo (Costs)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VINCENZO & VINCENZO (COSTS) [2014] FamCA 476

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application by the husband for costs against the wife – Order that wife pay husband’s costs on a party/party basis

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 117(2), 117(2A)

Woodley & Time and Anor [2008] FamCA 162
Re Malleson, Stewart, Stawell and Nankivell (1931) VLR 127

APPLICANT:

Mr Vincenzo

RESPONDENT: Ms Vincenzo

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10204 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 3 July 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Hobart

PLACE HEARD: Hobart

JUDGMENT OF: Benjamin J

HEARING DATE: By way of written submissions filed the 18 February 2014 and 3 March 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Bartfeld QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Taussig Cherrie Fildes

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Hevey

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Borchard Moore

Orders

1. The wife pay the legal costs and disbursements of the husband in the sum of $27,230.76 in respect of the application in a case filed 16 December 2013 such costs to be paid within sixty (60) days of these orders.

2. All remaining and outstanding applications for the costs of or by the parties, not otherwise dealt with in these orders, are dismissed.

IT IS CERTIFIED

1. Pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage senior counsel and counsel to attend.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT HOBART
HOBART

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10204 of 2011

Mr Vincenzo

Applicant

And

Ms Vincenzo

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a cost application made by Mr Vincenzo (“the husband”) following orders being made on the 21 January 2014 and reasons being delivered by this Court on 7 February 2014.  Each of the parties made written submissions in respect of costs.

2. Mw Vincenzo (“the wife”) is the applicant in the substantive proceedings for property and other orders which were commenced in November 2011 and are docketed to Bennett J.  The wife is the respondent to the husband’s application for costs.

3. On the 16 December 2013 the husband filed an application seeking an order restraining the wife from instructing her solicitor, Mr Moore and her junior counsel, Mr Thompson.  This application arose from the wife’s solicitor briefing Mr Ackman QC to represent her in various contexts. Mr Ackman QC had previously been briefed to provide advice to the husband and that circumstance was not apparent to either the husband or Mr Ackman QC until they met face to face at mediation.  The husband did not press his objection in respect of the wife’s solicitor but was successful in restraining a continuation of the brief to Mr Thompson. 

ORDERS SOUGHT

1. In his interlocutory application the husband sought orders that the costs be paid “by the wife and/or the firm trading under the firm name Borchard & Moore and or Mr Moore personally…