ZANGARI & FERREIRO
Case
•
[2020] FCCA 1390
•5 June 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
ZANGARI & FERREIRO [2020] FCCA 1390
[2020] FCCA 1390
5 June 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Zangari & Ferreiro*, heard before Judge Obradovic, the applicant mother sought costs on an indemnity basis from the respondent father. The court ultimately ordered scale costs.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the circumstances warranted an order for indemnity costs, as opposed to the usual order for costs to be assessed on the standard scale.
Judge Obradovic considered the application for indemnity costs and determined that the threshold for such an order was not met. The court applied the principles governing costs orders in family law proceedings, which generally favour scale costs unless there are specific reasons to depart from this norm. Having regard to the evidence and submissions, the court found no justification for an indemnity costs order.
Consequently, the respondent father was ordered to pay the costs of the applicant mother in the amount of $2,987 within 28 days.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the circumstances warranted an order for indemnity costs, as opposed to the usual order for costs to be assessed on the standard scale.
Judge Obradovic considered the application for indemnity costs and determined that the threshold for such an order was not met. The court applied the principles governing costs orders in family law proceedings, which generally favour scale costs unless there are specific reasons to depart from this norm. Having regard to the evidence and submissions, the court found no justification for an indemnity costs order.
Consequently, the respondent father was ordered to pay the costs of the applicant mother in the amount of $2,987 within 28 days.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
ZANGARI & FERREIRO [2020] FCCA 1390
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
3
Penfold v Penfold
[1980] HCA 4
Wrensted & Eades
[2016] FamCAFC 46
Cochrane & Cochrane
[2012] FMCAfam 984