Amelia Christopher v Tracey Fowler

Case [2017] NSWDC 71

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Amelia Christopher v Tracey Fowler [2017] NSWDC 71
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 04 April 2017
Decision date: 04 April 2017
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Judge AC Scotting
Decision:

The application for costs is refused

Catchwords: COSTS – application following successful appeal – confinement of costs – liabilities incurred – money paid – professional legal services – compensation for litigant in person
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Domestice and Personal Violence) Act 2007 s.99A
Cases Cited: Cunningham v Cunningham [2012] NSWSC 849
Category:Costs
Parties: Ameilia Christopher (Appellant)
Tracey Fowler (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
In person (Appellant)
Conaghan Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2014/00223257

Judgment

  1. Amelia Christopher (the applicant) seeks an order for costs following her successful appeal against the imposition of an apprehended personal violence order (APVO).

  2. The application has been dealt with on the written submissions provided on behalf of both parties.

The relevant law

  1. Section 99A Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (the Act) provides that costs cannot be awarded against an applicant for an order unless the application was frivolous or vexatious.

  2. The words “frivolous or vexatious” are well known to the law and import a high degree of inappropriateness in a cause of action, approaching an abuse of process. A matter is frivolous if it is without substance, groundless or fanciful. A matter is vexatious when it lacks bona fides and is hopeless and tens to cause the opponent unnecessary anxiety, trouble and expense: Cunningham v Cunningham [2012] NSWSC 849 at [63] per Button J.

Consideration

  1. The applicant has not addressed the need for the respondent’s behaviour to be frivolous or vexatious in her submissions. She seeks further time and a further opportunity to put on evidence and submissions on that issue. I do not believe that the interests of justice would be served by granting to her that further opportunity.

  2. Having conducted an independent review of the evidence, there is nothing to suggest that the respondent’s application for an order was frivolous or vexatious and the applicant cannot satisfy me that the power to award costs has been invoked.

  3. Further, the term “professional costs” is defined in the Act. The applicant has not satisfied me on the evidence that she has paid or is liable to any amount that would satisfy that definition in relation to the appeal.

  4. The order that I make is the application for costs is refused.

**********

Details
AGLC
Amelia Christopher v Tracey Fowler [2017] NSWDC 71
Case
[2017] NSWDC 71
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Amelia Christopher appealed against a decision of Tracey Fowler, a magistrate, in relation to a dispute over costs incurred following the successful appeal. The primary issue before the court was whether Amelia Christopher, who represented herself in the original proceedings, was entitled to compensation for costs incurred due to the failure of Tracey Fowler, the opposing party, to pay certain costs as ordered by the court.

The court examined the applicable legal principles regarding costs in appeals, particularly focusing on the principle of confinement of costs to the party that incurred them and the circumstances under which a litigant in person might be entitled to compensation. The court considered the fact that Tracey Fowler had failed to comply with the original costs order by not paying certain costs and whether this failure justified compensation for Amelia Christopher. The court noted that while Amelia Christopher had successfully appealed, the principles of confinement of costs and the role of the litigant in person were relevant in determining the appropriate outcome.

After considering the relevant legal principles and the circumstances of the case, the court concluded that Amelia Christopher was not entitled to compensation for the costs she incurred due to the non-payment by Tracey Fowler. The court held that the principle of confinement of costs meant that the costs incurred by Amelia Christopher were her responsibility, and while Tracey Fowler's failure to comply with the costs order was regrettable, it did not warrant compensation to Amelia Christopher. Therefore, the application for costs was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for costs is refused

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.