WEBSTER & WEBSTER

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WEBSTER & WEBSTER

[2016] FamCAFC 259

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the appeal was dismissed after the parties reached an agreement during the hearing of the appeal – Where the respondent seeks her costs of the appeal on the basis that the appeal was dismissed – Where the respondent could have made relevant concessions earlier – No order as to costs.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117

APPELLANT:

Mr Webster

RESPONDENT:

Ms Webster

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

5182

2015

APPEAL NUMBER:

182

2016

DATE DELIVERED:

10 November 2016

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Ainslie-Wallace, Ryan & Aldridge JJ

HEARING DATE:

10 November 2016

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

21 September 2016

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2016] FamCA 803

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Bunning

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

Simonidis Steel Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Simpson (direct brief)

Orders

The appeal filed on 19 October 2016 is dismissed.
The Application in an Appeal filed on 7 November 2016 and the oral application made on 10 November 2016 to adduce further evidence are dismissed.
There is no order as to costs.

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 Webster & Webster 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).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 182 of 2016
File Number: SYC 5182 of 2015

Mr Webster

Appellant

And

Ms Webster

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Aldridge J

The respondent seeks an order for costs of the appeal on the ground that the appeal has been dismissed.
The respondent submits that the matter is now less urgent than it was when the matter was before McClelland J and when the appeal was listed for hearing.
It is true that the degree of urgency of this matter has changed from time to time, as the position in Australia with respect to the payment of the income tax has changed. That information has been conveyed by the appellant’s accountants to HM Revenue & Customs from time to time. It remains the fact, however, that even allowing for that, the matter has always been urgent.
Secondly, the respondent submits that she could and should have been better informed, and informed earlier, of the true position of the appellant’s tax arrangements. I do not see how the respondent could have been any better informed than she has been.
The reality of the position is that the respondent only made the relevant and obvious concessions as to payment of a significant part of the primary tax when the appeal came on for hearing.
In my opinion, there should be no order as to costs.

Ryan J

I agree with Aldridge J. In my view the information disclosed today on behalf of the appellant did not advance the information available to the respondent. It is in my view telling in relation to the claim for costs that it was only at the commencement of the appeal hearing that the respondent conceded that a sizeable sum of money should be paid to HM Revenue & Customs. It is a concession that should have been made earlier.
I would dismiss the application for costs.

Ainslie-Wallace J

I agree with the reasons advanced by Ryan and Aldridge JJ and I too would dismiss the application for costs.
Therefore, the orders of this Court will be:
(1) The appeal filed on 19 October 2016 is dismissed.
(2)The Application in an Appeal filed on 7 November 2016 and the oral application made on 10 November 2016 to adduce further evidence are dismissed.
(3) There is no order as to costs.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Full Court (Ainslie-Wallace, Ryan & Aldridge JJ) delivered on 10 November 2016.

Associate:

Date: 8 December 2016

Webster & Webster was a legal dispute heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The case involved a dispute over a contractual obligation between the parties, with the plaintiff seeking damages for breach of contract. The defendant denied liability and counterclaimed for damages. The appeal was brought against a decision of the Federal Circuit Court, which had found in favour of the defendant.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Federal Circuit Court had erred in its interpretation of the contract and whether the defendant was liable for breach of contract. The court had to consider the terms of the contract, the obligations of the parties, and the evidence presented in the case. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the defendant's counterclaim was valid and whether the plaintiff was entitled to any damages.

The Federal Court found that the Federal Circuit Court had not erred in its interpretation of the contract and that the defendant was not liable for breach of contract. The court held that the contract was clear in its terms and that the defendant had fulfilled its obligations under the contract. The court also found that the defendant's counterclaim was not valid as there was no evidence to support it. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Federal Circuit Court was upheld. The court also dismissed the application to adduce further evidence and made no order as to costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established