ZUBCIC & ZUBCIC

Case [2020] FamCA 153

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ZUBCIC & ZUBCIC [2020] FamCA 153
FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where both the applicant’s and respondent’s conduct at first instance exacerbated the costs of proceedings – Where both are to bear their own costs – Where the applicant was wholly unsuccessful in her opposition to the second respondent’s claim – Where the claim was supported by compelling evidence – Order for the applicant to pay indemnity costs to the second respondent.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117(2A)
Australian Transport Insurance Pty Ltd & Anor v Graeme Phillips Road Transport Insurance Pty Ltd& Ors (1986) 71 ALR 287
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Limited (1993) 118 ALR 248
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Ltd & Ors (1988) 81 ALR 397
Hand & Bodilly [2013] FamCAFC 98.
Prantage & Prantage (2013) FLC 93-544
Re Wilcox, Ex parte Venture Industries Pty Ltd (1996) 72 FCR 151
APPLICANT: Ms Zubcic
RESPONDENT: Mr Zubcic
SECOND RESPONDENT: Mr B Zubcic
FILE NUMBER: SYC 6290 of 2013
DATE DELIVERED: 13 March 2020
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
PLACE HEARD: Sydney
JUDGMENT OF: Rees J
HEARING DATE: 27 February 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Connor
THE RESPONDENT: In person
SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT: YFX Lawyers

Orders

IT IS ORDERED

  1. That the wife’s application seeking an order that the husband pay her costs is dismissed.

  2. That the husband’s application seeking an order that the wife pay his costs is dismissed.

  3. That the wife pay the costs of the second respondent on an indemnity basis, in the sum of $83,936.25.

  4. That from any funds to be paid to the wife pursuant to Order 3 (9.5) made on 9 October 2019, the sum of $83,936.25, together with interest at the rate prescribed by the Family Law Rules from the date of these orders until the date of payment, be paid to the second respondent.

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 Zubcic & Zubcic 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 SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 6290 of 2013

Ms Zubcic

Applicant

And

Mr Zubcic

Respondent

And

Mr B Zubcic
Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 6 March 2018, reasons were delivered and orders made in proceedings relating to financial matters between Ms Zubcic (“the wife”), Mr Zubcic (“the husband”), Mr B Zubcic (“the second respondent” who is the husband’s father), Mr Gomes and Ms Gomes (“the third and fourth respondents” who are the wife’s parents), the Commissioner of…

Continue reading ZUBCIC & ZUBCIC

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
ZUBCIC & ZUBCIC [2020] FamCA 153
Case
[2020] FamCA 153
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Zubcic & Zubcic*, Rees J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications for costs made by the applicant wife and the respondent husband, as well as the costs sought by a second respondent. The dispute concerned the allocation of costs following proceedings where the conduct of both the applicant and the respondent husband had, according to the court, exacerbated the overall costs incurred.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether either party should be ordered to pay the other's costs, and whether the applicant should be ordered to pay the costs of the second respondent. The court was required to determine the appropriate cost orders in light of the parties' conduct during the proceedings and the outcome of the substantive claims.

Rees J reasoned that while both the applicant and the respondent husband had contributed to the increased costs through their conduct, neither was to bear the other's costs. However, the court found that the applicant was wholly unsuccessful in her opposition to the second respondent's claim, which was supported by compelling evidence. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant to pay the second respondent's costs on an indemnity basis. The final orders reflected this determination, dismissing the applications for costs between the wife and husband, and ordering the wife to pay the second respondent's costs in the sum of $83,936.25, with provision for payment from funds to be paid to the wife.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS ORDERED

1.

That the wife’s application seeking an order that the husband pay her costs is dismissed.

2.

That the husband’s application seeking an order that the wife pay his costs is dismissed.

3.

That the wife pay the costs of the second respondent on an indemnity basis, in the sum of $83,936.25.

4.

That from any funds to be paid to the wife pursuant to Order 3 (9.5) made on 9 October 2019, the sum of $83,936.25, together with interest at the rate prescribed by the Family Law Rules from the date of these orders until the date of payment, be paid to the second respondent.

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.