White and White (No 2)

[2016] FamCA 802

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WHITE & WHITE (NO 2) [2016] FamCA 802

FAMILY LAW – COSTS - Between parties

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Munday v Bowman (1997) FLC 92-784 per Holden CJ
Penfold and Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311
Quickley & Pelissier [2016] FamCAFC 124

APPLICANT: Mr White

RESPONDENT: Ms White

FILE NUMBER: CAC 1775 of 2015

DATE DELIVERED: 21 September 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra

PLACE HEARD: Canberra

JUDGMENT OF: Gill J

HEARING DATE: 25 August 2016

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Self-representing

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Howard

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Phelps Reid Lawyers

Orders

1. The applicant shall pay to the respondent seventy five percent of the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the hearing in relation to the application filed 7 April 2016 heard on 16 June 2016, on a party/party basis, in the sum agreed or assessed.

2. For the purposes of these Orders, and pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules, the Court certifies that it was reasonable for the respondent to brief counsel to appear on her behalf in the proceedings.

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 White & White 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 CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: CAC 1775 of 2015

Mr White

Applicant

And

Ms White

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The parties have commenced property proceedings that are yet to have a final hearing date allocated.  On 7 April 2016 the husband applied for interim orders.  The interim orders primarily sought to modify the orders made by Watts J on 12 February 2016, by Registrar Payget on 3 March 2016, and also to provide for access to financial records.  The orders sought concerned the husband’s access to items located at the former matrimonial home, the management of the finances and properties under dispute, the husband’s ability to discharge his duties as Director of the family company and trust, and his ability to prepare the case whilst restrained from accessing the location where pertinent company trust documentation was located. 

2. The wife filed a Response on 26 April 2016 seeking the dismissal of all of the husband’s orders sought and seeking her costs in doing so. 

3. I heard the interim matters on 8 June 2016 and delivered judgment on 16 June 2016.  The husband was largely unsuccessful, particularly in relation to the matters that had only recently been the subject of orders made by the court.  This then left an outstanding question as to costs.  The wife filed written…