WEBSTER & WEBSTER
[2016] FamCAFC 259
•10 November 2016
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| WEBSTER & WEBSTER | [2016] FamCAFC 259 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the appeal was dismissed after the parties reached an agreement during the hearing of the appeal – Where the respondent seeks her costs of the appeal on the basis that the appeal was dismissed – Where the respondent could have made relevant concessions earlier – No order as to costs. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117 |
| APPELLANT: | Mr Webster |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Webster |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 5182 | of | 2015 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | EA | 182 | of | 2016 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 10 November 2016 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Ainslie-Wallace, Ryan & Aldridge JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 10 November 2016 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 21 September 2016 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2016] FamCA 803 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: | Mr Bunning |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: | Simonidis Steel Lawyers |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Simpson (direct brief) |
Orders
The appeal filed on 19 October 2016 is dismissed.
The Application in an Appeal filed on 7 November 2016 and the oral application made on 10 November 2016 to adduce further evidence are dismissed.
There is no order as to costs.
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 Webster & Webster 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).
| THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
Appeal Number: EA 182 of 2016
File Number: SYC 5182 of 2015
| Mr Webster |
Appellant
And
| Ms Webster |
Respondent
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Aldridge J
The respondent seeks an order for costs of the appeal on the ground that the appeal has been dismissed.
The respondent submits that the matter is now less urgent than it was when the matter was before McClelland J and when the appeal was listed for hearing.
It is true that the degree of urgency of this matter has changed from time to time, as the position in Australia with respect to the payment of the income tax has changed. That information has been conveyed by the appellant’s accountants to HM Revenue & Customs from time to time. It remains the fact, however, that even allowing for that, the matter has always been urgent.
Secondly, the respondent submits that she could and should have been better informed, and informed earlier, of the true position of the appellant’s tax arrangements. I do not see how the respondent could have been any better informed than she has been.
The reality of the position is that the respondent only made the relevant and obvious concessions as to payment of a significant part of the primary tax when the appeal came on for hearing.
In my opinion, there should be no order as to costs.
Ryan J
I agree with Aldridge J. In my view the information disclosed today on behalf of the appellant did not advance the information available to the respondent. It is in my view telling in relation to the claim for costs that it was only at the commencement of the appeal hearing that the respondent conceded that a sizeable sum of money should be paid to HM Revenue & Customs. It is a concession that should have been made earlier.
I would dismiss the application for costs.
Ainslie-Wallace J
I agree with the reasons advanced by Ryan and Aldridge JJ and I too would dismiss the application for costs.
Therefore, the orders of this Court will be:
(1) The appeal filed on 19 October 2016 is dismissed.
(2)The Application in an Appeal filed on 7 November 2016 and the oral application made on 10 November 2016 to adduce further evidence are dismissed.
(3) There is no order as to costs.
I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Full Court (Ainslie-Wallace, Ryan & Aldridge JJ) delivered on 10 November 2016.
Associate:
Date: 8 December 2016
0
0
1