Wallis And Anor and Solomon And Ors (Costs)

[2009] FamCA 1149

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WALLIS AND ANOR & SOLOMON AND ORS (COSTS) [2009] FamCA 1149

FAMILY LAW – COSTS - Application for costs made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer - Application dismissed

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANTS: Mrs Wallis and
Mr G Wallis

1st RESPONDENT: Ms N Solomon

2nd RESPONDENT: Mr W Wallis

3rd RESPONDENT: Ms S Solomon

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Shepherd

FILE NUMBER: NCC 641 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 4 November 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Newcastle

PLACE HEARD: Newcastle

JUDGMENT OF: Justice Austin

HEARING DATE: 4 November 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANTS: Mr Williamson

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANTS: Braye Cragg Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT: Ms Burns

SOLICITOR FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT: Catherine Henry Partners

COUNSEL FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT: Mr Bateman

SOLICITOR FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT: CMI Law Firm

COUNSEL FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT: Mr Bates

SOLICITOR FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT: Rod Powe Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Goodchild

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Neisha Shepherd Solicitors

Orders

1. The Court entertains the oral application for costs made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

2. The application for costs is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Wallis and Anor & Solomon and Ors (Costs) is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER: NCC 641 of 2008

MRS WALLIS AND MR G WALLIS

Applicants

And

MS N SOLOMON

First Respondent

And

MR W WALLIS

Second Respondent

And

MS S SOLOMON

Third Respondent

And

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Following the publication of Orders and Reasons concerning the substantive parenting proceedings between the parties, the Independent Children’s Lawyer makes an application for costs, as is conventional.

2. I am informed from the bar table that each of the parties are the subject of a grant of legal aid.  Those submissions are not the subject of contest by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

3. As a consequence, the application for costs made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer is dismissed as against each and every one of the parties by reason of the provisions of s 117(4)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Austin.

Associate: 

Date:  4 November 2009