Zegna and Zegna - [2020] FamCA 192

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ZEGNA & ZEGNA

[2020] FamCA 192

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Between parties – costs claim made by the mother against the father in respect of a parenting application – where the father has contravened orders made by court in Spain – Spain a signatory to the Hague Convention – parenting application was filed by the father in circumstances where this Court had already determined it was not the proper forum to hear parenting applications between the parties – where the father failed to comply with s 60I of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) – where the conduct of the father justified the making of a costs order – where costs order was made on a solicitor and client basis.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60I, 69ZK, 111B, 111CB, 111CD, 117
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 2.02, 10.11, 19.08, 19.37

Bant & Clayton (Costs) (2016) Fam LR 31
Brown v Brown (1998) FLC 92-822
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 118 ALR 248
Duckworth & Jamison [2014] Fam CA 308
D & D (Costs) (No. 2) (2010) FLC 93-435
Elliott & Zova [2009] FamCA 49
Elmi & Munro (2019) FLC 93-912
Kohan and Kohan (1993) FLC 92-340
Limousin v Limousin (costs) (2007) 38 Fam LR 478
PBF as Child Representative for AF (Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania) and TRF and LKL [2005] FamCA 158
Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311
Prantage & Prantage (2013) FLC 93-544
Prantage & Prantage (Costs) [2014] FamCA 850
Sfakianakis and Sfakianakis (2019) 59 Fam LR 419
Stoian & Fiening (Costs) [2014] FamCA 944
Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Limited (2015) 256 CLR 507
Zegna v Zegna (2015) 55 Fam LR 134; [2015] FamCA 340

APPLICANT:

Mr Zegna

RESPONDENT:

Ms Zegna

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

3648

2011

DATE DELIVERED:

3 April 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Harper J

HEARING DATE:

Written Submissions

DATE OF LAST SUBMISSION:

7 February 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Zegna

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Burke & Mead Lawyers

SOLICITOR ADVOCATE FOR THE

RESPONDENT:

Mr Wahab

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT UNTIL 6 JANUARY 2020:

York Law

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT FROM 24 JANUARY 2020 ONWARDS:

Barkus Doolan

Orders

That within 28 from the date of these Orders the father pay the mother’s costs of and incidental to the parenting orders sought in the father’s Third Amended Initiating Application filed on 2 August 2018 on a solicitor and client basis, with such costs to be fixed in the sum of $6,975.25.

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 Zegna & Zegna 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…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Zegna and Zegna and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] FamCA 192
Decision Date: 3 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Zegna and Zegna*, heard by Harper J, the dispute concerned parenting orders. The specific details of the dispute leading to the application for parenting orders are not elaborated upon in the provided text, but the outcome relates to the costs associated with the father's Third Amended Initiating Application filed on 2 August 2018.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of costs in relation to the parenting orders sought by the father. Specifically, the court was required to decide on the basis and quantum of the costs to be paid by the father to the mother.

Harper J ordered that the father pay the mother's costs of and incidental to the parenting orders sought in the father's Third Amended Initiating Application. These costs were to be assessed on a solicitor and client basis and were fixed at the sum of $6,975.25. This payment was to be made within 28 days from the date of the orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

That within 28 from the date of these Orders the father pay the mother’s costs of and incidental to the parenting orders sought in the father’s Third Amended Initiating Application filed on 2 August 2018 on a solicitor and client basis, with such costs to be fixed in the sum of $6,975.25.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.