WINTERS & DOYLE

[2013] FamCA 931

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WINTERS & DOYLE [2013] FamCA 931

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the husband seeks an order for costs on an indemnity basis – where the husband seeks costs on the basis that those costs would not have been incurred had not the wife knowingly made a false allegation or statement – where the wife also seeks an order for costs – where the general position is that the parties bear their own costs – where there should be no order as to costs

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTION – Application for injunction to restrain the wife from dealing with the former matrimonial home – where an appeal is on foot –  where the husband claims that his appeal may be rendered nugatory in the event that the wife disposes of or encumbers her interests in the former matrimonial home – where there is no principle whereby the husband is entitled to require the wife to preserve in her hands an amount that would satisfy his claim on appeal – where the husband’s application is dismissed

APPLICANT: Mr Winters

RESPONDENT: Ms Doyle

FILE NUMBER: PAC 1161 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 2 December 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Loughnan J

HEARING DATE: 22 November 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr J Lloyd

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Paltos Briggs Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr D Holmes

Orders

1. The Applications in a Case of the husband filed 8 February 2013 and 7 November 2013 are dismissed.

2. The Application in a Case of the wife filed 8 February 2013 is dismissed.

3. There are no orders for costs.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: PAC 1161 of 2011

Mr Winters

Applicant

And

Ms Doyle

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. These are proceedings arising out of proceedings for parenting and property settlement orders determined by me on 11 January 2013. Each of the parties seeks an order for costs arising out of the substantive proceedings. In addition, the husband seeks an injunction restraining the wife in respect of the former matrimonial home. The respective applications are opposed.

Costs

The husband’s application

1. By his application filed 8 February 2013 the husband seeks the following costs:

   a)the costs of the substantive proceedings on an indemnity basis for the period 16 March 2011 to 2 March 2012 as agreed or failing agreement, as assessed;

   b) the costs incurred by the husband associated with the single expert Dr W in the sum of $7,700;

   c)the costs incurred by the husband associated with the appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer in the sum of $1,650; and

   d)the costs of the costs proceedings on an indemnity basis as agreed or failing agreement, as assessed.

2. The wording of the application and…