Watson & Watson (No 3)

[2010] FamCA 1256

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WATSON & WATSON (NO. 3) [2010] FamCA 1256

FAMILY LAW – COSTS

APPLICANT: Ms Watson

RESPONDENT: Mr Watson

FILE NUMBER: MLC 5375 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 10 December 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Dessau J

HEARING DATE: 10 December 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Bartfeld

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Maeve O’Brien & Associates

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Davis

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Webb Korfiatis

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Watson & Watson is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 5375 of 2009

MS WATSON

Applicant

And

MR WATSON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I have already said that costs are a discretionary matter under s 117 of the Family Law Act.

2. I take into account a number of things.  I take into account that the wife has brought the husband to Court on a contravention application, and she did succeed on one of the three contraventions.  There is no question that involved her in the expense of being in Court, and it has also involved her in the expense of hiring a private investigator. 

3. So far as hiring the private investigator is concerned, the husband cannot be heard to be saying that that was an unnecessary expense, because it has been proven in part to be a necessary expense. 

4. It is very difficult to determine what would be a fair and reasonable amount to allow in relation to costs incurred by the wife in that way.  I am given so little to go on.  There is apparently only one bill in Court for $6000.  Doing the best that I can, I am going to allow the wife $2000 in relation to the private investigator’s costs. 

5. So far as counsel is concerned, I am not satisfied it is a case that required both senior and junior counsel.  It could have been adequately dealt with by junior counsel, at the higher end of the scale. 

6. I have to take into account that there were financial and other matters also dealt with today.  And there was the husband’s successful application for holiday contact.  I propose allowing another $1000 for a total of $3000 costs in the wife’s favour, with a stay of 14 days.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Dessau delivered on 10 December 2010.

Associate: 

Date:  10 December 2010