Costs: When can you seek that one party meet your legal costs of family law proceedings?

The Family Law Act provides for each party to bear their own legal costs. In some cases however, a party may seek that the other meet their legal fees.

Section 117(2) of the Act provides that the Court may make an order that one party meet the other party’s costs of Court proceeding, “if there are circumstances that justify it doing so”.

Costs applications are commonly made where one party has made an offer to resolve the proceedings, the offer is rejected by the other party, and then the first mentioned party goes on to receive a similar or more advantageous outcome than the offer that was refused.

If I am successful in the proceedings, do I automatically get a costs order?

Costs will not automatically be awarded at the conclusion of a hearing. This is consistent with the general principle in family law proceedings that each party will be responsible for meeting their own costs.

If you wish to seek that the other party meet your costs, it will be necessary to file an Application, with a supporting Affidavit. The Court will conduct a separate hearing of your costs application, either by considering the documents in Chambers (where the parties do not need to appear) or at a hearing. Unfortunately, this means that you are likely to incur further legal costs whilst seeking that the other party meet your costs of the proceedings.

What will be considered when determining a costs application?

The Court will have regard to the following matters, as identified in section 117(2A) of the Family Law Act:

1. The financial circumstances of each of the parties to the proceedings;

2. Whether any party to the proceedings is in receipt of assistance from Legal Aid, and the terms of that assistance;

3. The conduct of the parties to the proceedings;

4. Whether the proceedings were necessary as a result of one party’s failure to comply with Orders of the Court;

5. Whether any party to the proceedings has been wholly unsuccessful in the proceedings;

6. Whether any party to the proceedings has made an offer of settlement in writing to the other party, and the terms of any such offer;

7. Any other relevant matter.

Will I be reimbursed all of my costs?

If a costs order is made, it will not necessarily provide for you to be reimbursed for the amount you spent on the litigation. The Court can consider awarding costs from the date that the offer was made (and for rejected) until the conclusion of the proceedings for example.

The Court has the power to order that a party meet the other party’s costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis, or in accordance with a scale of costs set in the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Family Law) Rules 2021. The scale of costs set in the Family Law Rules is significantly lower than the costs that a party would likely have incurred with their solicitor.

Indemnity costs effectively provide for a party to be reimbursed the costs incurred by them with their solicitor (for the relevant period, from when the offer was made until the conclusion of the hearing). It is rare that the Court orders one party to pay costs on an indemnity basis. In order to do so, the Court must be satisfied that a party “imprudently refused of an offer to compromise”, as found in the case of Colgate-Palmolive v Cussons [1993] FCA 536. Indemnity costs can also be ordered against a party who has failed to comply with Court Orders or who has improperly conducted themselves throughout proceedings.

The Court may also order that costs be paid as assessed or agreed, whereby if the parties cannot agree on the amount of costs to be paid, an independent assessor can be appointed to determine the amount of costs payable, based on what costs were reasonably incurred during the proceedings. The costs assessor is entitled to be paid for their work in assessing the costs also.

What does this mean for me?

The above matters emphasise the importance of making reasonable offers to resolve your family law matter, and also the necessity to consider any offer of settlement very carefully.

If you wish to obtain advice in relation to your family law matter, contact Robinson + McGuinness to arrange an appointment on (02) 6225 7040, by email on info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online with one of our experienced lawyers.

Author: Margot McCabe

The issue of forum: when proceedings are commenced in Australia and overseas

The majority of applications for a property settlement that come before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (“FCFCOA”) involve two parties who ordinarily reside in Australia and own property in Australia.  However, there are some matters where:

1. The parties ordinarily reside in Australia, however most of their assets are owned overseas; or

2. One or both of the parties do not usually reside in Australia, but they have property in Australia.

In these circumstances, it may be possible for the parties to invoke the jurisdiction of not only the FCFCOA, but also the courts of another country (i.e. where the parties are residing or where the property is held).  Commencing proceedings in another country, when the FCFCOA already has jurisdiction mostly occurs out of convenience, however it is also sometimes done for strategic advantage. 

If proceedings are commenced in FCFCOA by one party, and in another country by the other party, it will likely be necessary for the FCFCOA to decide whether it should continue to hear the matter.  In these circumstances, it is likely that the following two applications will be made in the FCFCOA:

1. The Applicant in the FCFCOA proceedings will likely seek an anti-suit injunction restraining the other party from continuing the overseas litigation; and

2.   The Respondent in the FCFCOA proceedings will likely seek a stay (or in other words a pause) of the FCFCOA proceedings to enable the overseas litigation to continue.

The FCFCOA will not lightly make the decision to stay its own proceedings; it has an inherent jurisdiction to permit the protection of its own processes from being used to bring about an injustice.

The High Court case of Voth v Manildra Flour Mills (1990) 171 CLR 538 outlines that the relevant principle to be applied by the FCFCOA in determining an application for a stay of the Australian proceedings is that of forum non conveniens. The relevant test associated with this principle is whether the Court in which the stay is sought is “clearly an inappropriate forum”.  The onus of establishing that Australia is clearly an inappropriate forum will be upon the party seeking the stay.

When considering whether Australia is clearly an inappropriate forum, the FCFCOA will look at:

1. Whether each Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter;

2. If the answer to 1 is yes, will each Court recognise each other’s orders or decrees?

3.  Which forum will provide a more complete resolution of the matters?

4.  In what order were the proceedings instituted?

5.  What stage are each set of proceedings up to?

6.  What costs have the parties incurred in each set of proceedings?

7.  The connection of the parties and their marriage with each of the jurisdictions and the relief that is available in each of the jurisdictions?

8.  The parties’ resources and understanding of the language – for example, can the parties participate in the proceedings on an equal footing? and

9.  The general nature of the case, taking into consideration the true nature and full extent of the issues involved.

The purpose of the above is not to compare the two jurisdictions or consider which is more appropriate; rather, the FCFCOA is to consider whether it is clearly an inappropriate forum having regard to the above.  If the Court finds it is clearly an inappropriate forum, it will be required to grant a stay of its proceedings.

However, if the stay application is denied, the FCFCOA will then consider any application for an anti-suit injunction.  Where the proceedings are the same (i.e. seek orders with respect to the same subject manner), the FCFCOA must give consideration to whether the continuation of duplicated proceedings is likely to be vexatious or oppressive.  Where the answer is yes, the FCFCOA may consider making an anti-suit injunction preventing the continuation of the other court proceedings.

Issues of forum can be complex.  It is important that the issue of forum is raised early, and without delay.  If you think this issue is applicable to your family law matter, you should seek advice from a specialist family lawyer without delay. Contact Robinson + McGuinness to arrange an appointment on (02) 6225 7040, by email on info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online with one of our experienced lawyers.

Author: Peta Sutton

Reopening parenting proceedings: What is a material change in circumstances?

A commonly referred to parenting case, Rice & Asplund 179 FLC, set an important precedent that a finalised parenting case ought not be reopened unless the Court is satisfied that there has been a significant change in circumstances. The change does not need to be so significant that it would clearly result in a change to the orders, however the change or fresh circumstances must demonstrate a real likelihood of change being made to the orders.

So, in what circumstances has the Court found that there has been a significant change of circumstances?

• The relocation, or proposed relocation of a parent is a common basis upon which the Court will permit reopening of proceedings. In the case of Stern & Colli [2022] FedCFam C1A 95, at the time that final orders had been made by the (then) Federal Circuit Court of Australia in 2017, the Father had been living approximately four hours from the child, who lived primarily with the mother. He sought to reopen proceedings in 2020, after he had relocated such that the distance between the Father and the child was reduced to a 40-minute drive. The Father’s application to reopen was dismissed, however on appeal, the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court found that the Father had demonstrated sufficient reasons to reopen the parenting case. The matter was remitted for hearing.

• In the case of Shan & Prasad (2020) FLC, the Court at first instance dismissed the Father’s application to reopen proceedings. The Father had relied on new psychiatric evidence demonstrating the improvement in his mental health. On appeal, it was found that the evidence adduced by the Husband was sufficient to warrant the reopening of proceedings.

•   In the case of Westlake & Westlake [2019] FamCA 563, the Father’s application to reopen proceedings was dismissed. Final Orders had been made providing for the Father to have only supervised time with the children. He subsequently relied on evidence obtained from a psychologist, asserting that such evidence demonstrated an improvement in his mental health such that a reopening of proceedings was warranted. The Father’s application was dismissed, with reference to other expert evidence which showed the Father’s “personality with obsessional and narcissistic traits which are very well developed which do not equate to being a mental illness which can be treated”. Those findings satisfied the Court that there was no change in the Father’s fixed views of the Mother to justify reopening the proceedings.

• The change resulting from passage of time has been a circumstance in which the Court will consider reopening proceedings. A common example of this would be when orders are made for an infant, such that there is no provision for the child to have overnight time with one parent. Of course, over time, those orders become restrictive and no longer support the best interests of the child.

• If there are allegations of physical or emotional harm or abuse, sufficient for the Court to be satisfied that there is risk of harm, the Court has reopened proceedings.

• Parties may also make Orders by consent in recognition of a change in circumstance, however it remains open to the Court to refuse to reopen proceedings, or make further orders by consent, if there is not a sufficient change in circumstances.

Ultimately, the Court needs to determine whether it is appropriate to reopen a case based on the particular facts in each case. A change in a party’s geographical location or simply the passage of time may or may not demonstrate a change in circumstances adequate to justify the reopening of parenting proceedings.                                                                                                

For this reason, it is prudent to obtain advice tailored to your circumstances from a family lawyer, ideally as soon as possible after separation, in order to preserve your interests. Contact Robinson + McGuinness to make an appointment on (02) 6225 7040 or by email on info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online with one of our experienced lawyers.

Author: Margot McCabe

Obligations to resolve disputes prior to commencing Court Proceedings

Following separation there are many decisions to be made including who will continue to live in the family home and who will move out, what arrangements will be in place for the children, what the property settlement will look like and who gets to keep the dog.

For some couples, these matters can be agreed upon quickly and without too much stress, however sometimes people require assistance from a lawyer, mediator or the Court to resolve disputes following a separation.

On 1 September 2021 the Federal Circuit and Family Court Rules 2021 came into effect.  These rules have created an overarching principle and obligation upon litigants to ensure that they use their best endeavours to negotiate an agreement before commencing Court proceedings.  This includes attendance at a dispute resolution process, such as mediation or conciliation.

These obligations are known as pre-action procedures and must be complied with before Court proceedings are commenced. The pre-action procedures require parties to attend to the following:

1. If it safe to do so, provide the other party with a copy of the pre-action procedures (found here parenting or property), make enquiries with respect to dispute resolution processes (such as mediation), and invite the other party to participate in dispute resolution;

2. Attend a dispute resolution process and make a genuine effort to resolve the dispute. If an agreement is reached at dispute resolution, steps can be taken to formalise the agreement. Parties should seek advice from a specialist family lawyer to assist them in formalising agreements to ensure that it is understood and can be implemented.

3. If an agreement cannot be reached at dispute resolution and it is intended that Court proceedings will be commenced, the first step is to place the other party on notice, in writing, of the intention to go to Court.  The notice should set out:

a. The issues in dispute;

b. The Orders that will be sought from the Court;

c. A genuine offer to resolve the issues in dispute; and

d. A timeframe in which a response is to be provided.  This should not be less than 14 days.

If the other party responds, it is expected by the Court that a reasonable attempt will be made to engage in a discussion and negotiation prior to commencing Court proceedings.  

4. Where an agreement cannot be reached, and proceedings are commenced, a Genuine Steps Certificate will need to be filed outlining that the pre-action procedures have been complied with.

A failure to comply with the pre-action procedures will be taken seriously by the Court and places litigants at risk of their application being dismissed and/or a costs order being made against them.

It is important that you have attended to the above before you commence Court proceedings, unless you meet one of the limited exemptions. There are some circumstances where it would not be appropriate to comply with the pre-action procedures, such as if it is unsafe for parties to attend dispute resolution, or if Court proceedings are required to be commenced urgently.  Advice should be sought from a specialist family law solicitor before seeking to dispense with (or ignore) the pre-action procedures.

As family law solicitors, we at Robinson + McGuinness will be able to advise you in relation to your rights and entitlements and assist you to finalise matters following separation. We will also be able to assist you to ensure that you have met your obligations to comply with the pre-action procedures prior to commencing Court proceedings.

Divorce and separation can be incredibly stressful and you should obtain expert advice early to point you in the right direction.

For advice in relation to your family law matter, contact Robinson + McGuinness to arrange an appointment on (02) 6225 7040, by email on info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online with one of our experienced lawyers.

Author: Peta Sutton, Associate