Vong & Barma

Case [2025] FedCFamC1F 219


FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Vong & Barma [2025] FedCFamC1F 219

File number: SYC 4931 of 2024
Judgment of: HARPER J
Date of judgment: 2 April 2025
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – COSTS – Where the wife seeks costs of interlocutory applications by the husband for appointment of a litigation guardian and injunctions – Where the proceedings were before the Court three times and the parties entered into consent orders – Where the wife seeks costs as agreed or assessed on a party/party basis – Where the husband’s application for a litigation guardian was inappropriate and should not have been brought on the basis of the available evidence – Where the husband’s conduct in bringing the application for a litigation guardian justifies an award of costs in the wife’s favour – Where both parties made offers in writing to resolve claims for injunctive relief – Where the ultimate consent position reached by the parties was closer to what was proffered by the wife than the husband – Where the conduct of the husband in relation to the injunctive orders sought does not justify an order of costs in the wife’s favour – Order for the husband to pay the wife’s costs of his interlocutory application as agreed or assessed as to 30 per cent only of those costs.  
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VIII, ss 95, 96, 117
Cases cited:

Atkins & Hunt (Costs) [2017] FamCAFC 131

Fitzgerald (as child representative for A (Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania)) & Fish (2005) 33 Fam LR 123; [2005] FamCA 158

Parke & The Estate of the Late A Parke (2016) FLC 93-748; [2016] FamCAFC 248

Prantage & Prantage (Costs) [2014] FamCA 850

Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 32
Date of hearing: 2 April 2025
Place: Sydney
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Reynolds
Solicitor for the Applicant: Broaden Legal
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Cummings SC and Ms Merrett
Solicitor for the Respondent: Juris Cor Legal

ORDERS

SYC 4931 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MR VONG

Applicant

AND:

MS BARMA

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

HARPER J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Applicant Husband (“husband”) pay the Respondent Wife’s (“wife”) costs of the husband’s interlocutory application for relief forming part of his Initiating Application filed on 27 June 2024, as agreed or assessed as to 30 per cent only of those costs.

2.There be no order as to the costs of and incidental to the wife’s application for costs heard and determined on 2 April 2025.

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…

Continue reading Vong & Barma

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Vong & Barma [2025] FedCFamC1F 219
Case
[2025] FedCFamC1F 219
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Vong & Barma, the court addressed the wife's application for costs stemming from interlocutory applications made by the husband. The proceedings involved multiple appearances before the court, culminating in consent orders that reflected the wife's proposals more closely than the husband's. The wife sought costs on a party/party basis for the husband's applications, including those for the appointment of a litigation guardian and for injunctive relief.

The court was tasked with determining whether the husband's applications were appropriate and if his conduct warranted an award of costs in the wife's favor. The court found that the husband's application for a litigation guardian was inappropriate based on the evidence available at the time. However, the court concluded that while the husband's conduct justified an award of costs for the interlocutory application, it did not warrant such an award for the injunctive relief applications. The wife's proposals for resolving the injunctive relief claims were more closely aligned with the eventual consent orders.

The court's decision resulted in an order for the husband to pay the wife's costs of the interlocutory application, but only to the extent of 30 per cent of those costs. The court made no order regarding the costs of the wife's application for costs, which was heard and determined on 2 April 2025.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 4931 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MR VONG

Applicant

AND:

MS BARMA

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

HARPER J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Applicant Husband (“husband”) pay the Respondent Wife’s (“wife”) costs of the husband’s interlocutory application for relief forming part of his Initiating Application filed on 27 June 2024, as agreed or assessed as to 30 per cent only of those costs.

2. There be no order as to the costs of and incidental to the wife’s application for costs heard and determined on 2 April 2025.

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

Full text does not contain this section.