Vukoja and Vukoja (No 3) - [2020] FamCA 676

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VUKOJA & VUKOJA (NO. 3)

[2020] FamCA 676

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where application for costs arising from undefended parenting proceedings – Where consideration of applicable principles – Where order for costs made in a fixed sum.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 19.18

Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 135 ALR 160
Collins & Collins (1985) FLC 91-603
Greedy & Greedy (1982) FLC 91-250
Hawkins & Roe [2012] FamCAFC 77; (2012) 47 Fam LR 526
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2007] NSWSC 23
Luadaka & Luadaka (1998) FLC 92-830
Parke & the Estate of the Late A Parke (2016) FLC 93‑748
Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311

APPLICANT:

Ms Vukoja

RESPONDENT:

Mr Vukoja

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

129

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

14 August 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Foster J

HEARING DATE:

By way of written submissions last received 3 July 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms De Vere

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Nikola Velcic & Associates

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

John & Co Lawyers

Orders

The father pay the mother’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings in the sum of $15,000 within one month from this date.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 129 of 2018

Ms Vukoja

Applicant

And

Mr Vukoja

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The application for determination is an application for costs made by the applicant mother arising from parenting proceedings between her and the respondent father heard on an undefended basis on 16 June 2020. Reasons for Judgment were reserved on this date and an order was made for the mother to file and serve a short outline of submissions as to costs and as to the quantum of costs by 3 July 2020.
The mother forwarded submissions as to costs on 3 July 2020 and judgment as to costs was subsequently reserved.
On 3 August 2020 the Court published its Reasons for Judgment in relation to the undefended parenting hearing and made orders as follows:
(1)That the mother have sole parental responsibility for the three children of the marriage namely X born in 2011, Y born in 2013 and Z born in 2017 (“the children”).
(2)That the children live with the mother.
(3)That pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Vukoja and Vukoja (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Vukoja and Vukoja (No 3) [2020] FamCA 676
Case: [2020] FamCA 676
Decision Date: 14 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Vukoja and Vukoja (No 3)*, Foster J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was required to determine the appropriate costs order following earlier proceedings between the parties. The specific dispute before the court concerned the quantum of costs to be awarded to the mother.

The central legal issue before the court was the assessment of the quantum of costs payable by the father to the mother. This involved considering the nature of the proceedings and the circumstances that led to the costs application.

Foster J ordered that the father pay the mother’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings in the sum of $15,000, to be paid within one month. This order was subject to the formal entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

The father pay the mother’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings in the sum of $15,000 within one month from this date.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.