Woodham and Woodham and Ors

[2018] FamCA 1136

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WOODHAM & WOODHAM AND ORS [2018] FamCA 1136

FAMILY LAW – COSTS

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Woodham

RESPONDENT: Mr Woodham

2^ND RESPONDENT: Ms Gleeson in her capacity as Executrix in the Estate of the Late Ms P Woodham

3^RD RESPONDENTS: Each of the trustees of the trusts names in the schedule to the Further Amended Initiating Application filed by the Applicant Wife on 31 January 2018

FILE NUMBER: MLC 11101 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 14 February 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 14 February 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Bartfeld QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Lander & Rogers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:	Mr Strum QC with Mr Nehmy
SOLICITORS FOR THE RESPONDENT:	Tisher Liner Fc

COUNSEL FOR THE 2^ND AND 3^RD RESPONDENTS

SOLICITORS FOR THE 2^ND AND 3^RD RESPONDENTS

Mr North SC with Ms Renwick

KCL Law

Orders

1. That all outstanding applications are adjourned to 10.00am on 12 June 2018 for the determination of any outstanding interlocutory issues.

2. That the wife pay the costs of Ms Gleeson and Mr D in total amounting to $7,876 within 60 days.

3. That the wife pay the costs of the husband fixed in the sum of $3862 within 60 days.

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 Woodham & Woodham 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 11101 of 2016

MS WOODHAM

Applicant

And

MR WOODHAM

Respondent

And

MS GLEESON IN HER CAPACITY AS EXECUTRIX IN THE ESTATE OF THE LATE MS P WOODHAM

2^nd Respondent

And

EACH OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE TRUSTS NAMES IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE FURTHER AMENDED INITIAITNG APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPLICANT WIFE ON 31 JANUARY 2018

3^rd Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I have two applications for costs before the court.  The first relates to parties who are still before the court and one who is no longer in that capacity.  The other relates to a claim by the husband.  There is no dispute about the quantum of the costs but rather whether or not an order should be made, or if it should be reserved.  In my view, an order for costs should be made here and in the sums suggested. 

2. Section 117 of the Act provides that in litigation under the Act each party shall bear their own costs unless there are circumstances that justify a departure from that principle.  If a court makes that finding, then – and as part of its finding – it must look at the matter set out in section 117(2A).  That is unnecessary here by virtue of the concession made by Mr Bartfeld on behalf of the wife quite properly. 

3. It is clear from what occurred here that an order emanated from the court setting the matter down for a directions hearing for the purposes of setting a final trial.  A number of weeks went by, as was clearly intended by the court to enable the parties to get their houses in order.  A series of steps occurred under which the wife provided an unsealed application to the parties whom it was thought were going to be joined and one of whom is not now not to be joined.  Ultimately that application was not proceeded with. 

4. I am not in a position to say that the application as it was framed is incompetent and I do not think it is necessary for me to so find, in any event.  The purpose of the exercise is to say whether or not there was a circumstance that justified the court departing from the principle that each party pays their own costs.  In my view, what occurred here was that the things that were to be done were not.  In my view, the order for costs should be made. 

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 14 February 2018.

Associate: 

Date:  27 March 2018