PAGAN & BEATTIE (No.2)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PAGAN & BEATTIE (No.2)

[2018] FCCA 887

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Practice and Procedure – costs.

Applicant:

MR PAGAN

Respondent:

MS BEATTIE

File Number:

PAC 5622 of 2016

Judgment of:

Judge Obradovic

Hearing date:

By written submissions

Date of Last Submission:

3 November 2017

Delivered at:

Parramatta

Delivered on:

11 April 2018

ORDERS

No further orders.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Pagan & Beattie (No.2) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 5622 of 2016

MR PAGAN

Applicant

And

MS BEATTIE

Respondent

ADDENDUM TO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

On 29 March 2018 this Court delivered its Reasons in respect of a costs application made by the father against the maternal grandparents.
At paragraph 3 of that Judgment, the Court incorrectly noted that the maternal grandparents had not filed any submissions or evidence in response to the costs application. They had indeed filed evidence[1] but no submissions.
[1] The maternal grandfather Mr Beattie filed a short affidavit on 3 November 2017 however, no evidence by the maternal grandmother has been filed
As noted previously[2], the Court may vary or set aside its judgment or order pursuant to Rule 16.05 Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) in certain circumstances.
[2] See Pagan & Beattie [2017] FCCA 857 and Pagan & Beattie (No.2) [2017] FCCA 1402
Having regard to the matters deposed to in the affidavit of the maternal grandfather filed 3 November 2017, while the Court feels significant sympathy for the unfortunate circumstances which befell him, the reasons for the costs order are unaffected. There was no finding that the application for joinder was ever anything but a bona fide application. While an assertion is made by Mr Beattie that he is suffering financial hardship, the extent of such hardship is not the subject of any evidence. Indeed, this is but one of the factors the Court is to have regard to.
A costs order is not made to punish, it is made to compensate. As such, the orders made on 29 March 2018 shall remain.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Obradovic

Date: 12 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Pagan & Beattie (No.2)*, Obradovic J of the Supreme Court of Victoria considered an application for further orders following an earlier decision. The precise nature of the dispute between the parties, Pagan and Beattie, is not detailed in the provided text, beyond the fact that it has progressed to a stage where further judicial intervention was sought.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether any additional orders were warranted in the proceedings. This required the Court to assess the existing orders and the circumstances presented by the parties to determine if further judicial pronouncements were necessary or appropriate.

Obradovic J ultimately determined that no further orders should be made. The reasoning behind this decision is not elaborated upon in the provided text, but the outcome signifies that the Court found no basis to grant any additional relief or directions to the parties at this juncture.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established