Yeo & Huy (Costs) - [2012] FamCA 758

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

YEO & HUY (COSTS)

[2012] FamCA 758

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – where applicant had commenced proceedings in Taiwan, before commencing proceedings in Australia – where respondent sought a stay of the proceedings in Australia – where stay granted – where respondent seeks costs on an indemnity basis – where respondent wholly successful in application for stay – where applicant ordered to pay respondent’s costs on a party and party basis.

Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld)

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Colgate-Palmolive Co & Anor v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 118 ALR 248

CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 345

Henry v Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534
Skinner & Alfonso-Skinner [2010] FamCA 1108

APPLICANT:

Ms Yeo

RESPONDENT:

Mr Huy

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

5627

2011

DATE DELIVERED:

31 August 2012

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Chambers

JUDGMENT OF:

Murphy J

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED:

Respondent: 24 April 2012

Applicant: 23 May 2012
Respondent in Reply: 10 July 2012

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Dante Chen Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Hartley Healey

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT

The wife pay the husband’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings on a party and party basis as and from the filing of the Amended Response by the husband on 14 October 2011 in an amount agreed in writing between the parties or, failing agreement, to be assessed within 21 days of the date of this order.
Payment shall be made by the wife within 14 days of agreement or assessment as the case may be.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Yeo & Huy (Costs) 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 BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC5627 of 2011

Ms Yeo

Applicant Wife

And

Mr Huy

Respondent Husband

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COSTS

On 20 March 2012 I made orders and delivered reasons for judgment, the effect of which was to permanently stay an initiating application filed by the wife on 30 June 2011. Among the orders made on that day were procedural orders relating to any applications for costs.
On 24 April 2012 written submissions were received pursuant to those directions seeking that the wife pay the husband’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings for stay, from the date of the filing of an Amended Response by the husband seeking the permanent stay to which I have referred, 14 October 2011. Submission in response were filed by the wife on 23 May 2012 and submissions in reply on 10 July 2012.
These reasons relate to that application for costs. The application is made in the alternative; that costs be awarded on an indemnity basis or, otherwise the alternative, on a standard basis.

Background

The history of the stay…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Yeo & Huy (Costs)

Details

AGLC: YEO & HUY (COSTS) [2012] FamCA 758
Case: [2012] FamCA 758
Decision Date: 31 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Yeo & Huy (Costs)*, the dispute concerned the costs of proceedings between a wife and a husband, with the matter being determined by Murphy J.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate basis and quantum of costs to be awarded following the conclusion of the substantive proceedings. Specifically, the court was required to determine whether the wife should be ordered to pay the husband's costs, and if so, on what basis and from what point in time.

Murphy J ordered that the wife pay the husband's costs of and incidental to the proceedings on a party and party basis. This order was to apply from 14 October 2011, the date the husband filed his Amended Response. The quantum of these costs was to be determined by agreement between the parties, or failing agreement, to be assessed within 21 days of the court's order. The wife was then required to make payment within 14 days of the costs being agreed or assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS ORDERED THAT

The wife pay the husband’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings on a party and party basis as and from the filing of the Amended Response by the husband on 14 October 2011 in an amount agreed in writing between the parties or, failing agreement, to be assessed within 21 days of the date of this order.

Payment shall be made by the wife within 14 days of agreement or assessment as the case may be.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.