Valentine and Lacerra and Anor (Independent Children’s Lawyer - Costs)

Case [2013] FamCAFC 73


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VALENTINE & LACERRA AND ANOR (INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER - COSTS) [2013] FamCAFC 73
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER – COSTS CERTIFICATES – where the Independent Children’s Lawyer made an oral application for costs certificates for both the appeal and any rehearing pursuant to sections 6 and 8 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) – where orders were made for the Independent Children’s Lawyer to file any submissions in support of that application if it was to be pursued – where the Independent Children’s Lawyer has filed no submissions nor indicated whether or not the application is pursued – application dismissed.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth)

Yates & Yates (Independent Children’s Lawyer - Costs) [2012] FamCAFC 219

APPELLANT: Mr Valentine
FIRST RESPONDENT: Ms Lacerra
SECOND RESPONDENT: Ms Dalley
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW
FILE NUMBER: PAC 2473 of 2011
APPEAL NUMBER: EA 60 of 2012
DATE DELIVERED: 7 May 2013
PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide
PLACE HEARD: In Chambers
ADDENDUM JUDGMENT OF: Faulks DCJ, Coleman & Strickland JJ
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Magistrates Court
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 2 April 2012
LOWER COURT MNC: [2012] FMCAfam 414

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Dr Harper SC
COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST & SECOND RESPONDENTS: Ms Judge
SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST & SECOND RESPONDENTS: John Spence & Associates
COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Sperling
SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW

Orders

  1. The oral application for costs certificates pursuant to sections 6 and 8 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer on 6 December 2012 be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Valentine & Lacerra and Anor (Independent Children’s Lawyer – Costs) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 60 of 2012
File Number: PAC 2473 of 2011

Mr Valentine

Appellant

And

Ms Lacerra

First Respondent

And

Ms Dalley

Second Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

ADDENDUM REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. We delivered our reasons for judgment in this appeal on 9 April 2013.

  2. We recorded in paragraph 94 of our reasons that at the hearing of the appeal on 6 December 2012, in the event that the appeal was successful the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought costs certificates under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) for both the appeal and any rehearing.

  3. In paragraph 95 of our reasons we indicated that as a result of the decision of the Full Court (Finn, Strickland and Johnston JJ) in Yates & Yates (Independent Children’s Lawyer - Costs) [2012] FamCAFC 219 which was delivered after we had reserved our decision in this appeal, we should give the Independent Children’s Lawyer the opportunity to make written submissions in support of that application if it was still pursued. Accordingly, we made an order that if the application was pursued written submissions should be filed and served by the Independent Children’s Lawyer within 21 days.

  4. That period expired on 30 April 2013, and there has been no indication from the Independent Children’s Lawyer as to whether or not the application is pursued, and no written submissions have been filed.

  5. In these circumstances we propose to formally dismiss the application for costs certificates made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Full Court (Faulks DCJ, Coleman & Strickland JJ) delivered on 7 May 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  7 May 2013

Details
AGLC
Valentine and Lacerra and Anor (Independent Children’s Lawyer - Costs) [2013] FamCAFC 73
Case
[2013] FamCAFC 73
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Family Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning an application for costs certificates by the Independent Children's Lawyer in the case of Valentine and Lacerra and Anor. The Independent Children's Lawyer, who was represented by Legal Aid NSW, had made an oral application for costs certificates for both the appeal and any potential rehearing, as per sections 6 and 8 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth). The Full Court ordered the Independent Children's Lawyer to submit written arguments if the application was to be pursued. However, the Independent Children's Lawyer did not file any submissions or indicate whether the application was being pursued. The Court, therefore, dismissed the application for costs certificates.

The legal issue the Court had to decide was whether the Independent Children's Lawyer had complied with the Court's order to file written submissions if it was to pursue its application for costs certificates. The Court had to determine if the Independent Children's Lawyer had fulfilled its obligations under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) and whether it had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the application to proceed. Given that no submissions were filed and no indication was given regarding the pursuit of the application, the Court found that the Independent Children's Lawyer had not complied with the Court's order.

The Court reasoned that the Independent Children's Lawyer had not taken the necessary steps to pursue its application for costs certificates, as required by the Court's order. The Full Court noted that the Independent Children's Lawyer had ample opportunity to file written submissions but failed to do so. The Court also referred to the precedent set in Yates & Yates (Independent Children’s Lawyer - Costs) [2012] FamCAFC 219, which influenced the order made in this case. As a result of the Independent Children's Lawyer's failure to comply with the Court's order, the application for costs certificates was dismissed.

The Full Court formally dismissed the application for costs certificates made by the Independent Children's Lawyer. The Court noted that no written submissions had been filed, and there was no indication from the Independent Children's Lawyer regarding whether the application was being pursued. Consequently, the oral application for costs certificates was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.