Costs
1: Simic & Norton [2017] FamCA 1007 | December 11, 2017
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Costs, Lawyer Complaints, Legal fees, Professional Misconduct
Judges: Benjamin J
Background: A Family Court judge has delivered a blistering judgment on the “culture of bitter, adversarial and highly aggressive family law litigation” in Sydney and blasted two law firms for charging “outrageous” fees.
[Legal Issue]Justice Benjamin said the couple, given the pseudonyms Mr Simic and Ms Norton, had spent an “eye-watering” $860,000 in the proceedings and “these amounts are, on their face, outrageous levels of costs for ordinary people involved in family law proceedings”.
The Hobart-based judge took aim at the “win at all costs, concede little or nothing, chase every rabbit down every hole and hang the consequences approach to family law litigation” he had observed in Sydney and the culture of “bitter, adversarial and highly aggressive family law litigation”.
[Court Orders]IT IS DIRECTED
A Registrar of this Court forward to the Legal Services Commission of New South Wales the following documents:-
(a) a sealed copy of this order;
(b) a copy of the reasons upon which this order is based; and
(c) a copy of the submissions made by or on behalf of each of the Applicant and Respondent in respect of the question as to whether to refer the solicitors to the Legal Services Commission of New South Wales.
IT IS REQUESTED
The Legal Services Commission of New Sout
Catchwords: Costs, Lawyer Complaints, Legal fees, Professional Misconduct
Judges: Benjamin J
Background: A Family Court judge has delivered a blistering judgment on the “culture of bitter, adversarial and highly aggressive family law litigation” in Sydney and blasted two law firms for charging “outrageous” fees.
[Legal Issue]Justice Benjamin said the couple, given the pseudonyms Mr Simic and Ms Norton, had spent an “eye-watering” $860,000 in the proceedings and “these amounts are, on their face, outrageous levels of costs for ordinary people involved in family law proceedings”.
The Hobart-based judge took aim at the “win at all costs, concede little or nothing, chase every rabbit down every hole and hang the consequences approach to family law litigation” he had observed in Sydney and the culture of “bitter, adversarial and highly aggressive family law litigation”.
[Court Orders]IT IS DIRECTED
A Registrar of this Court forward to the Legal Services Commission of New South Wales the following documents:-
(a) a sealed copy of this order;
(b) a copy of the reasons upon which this order is based; and
(c) a copy of the submissions made by or on behalf of each of the Applicant and Respondent in respect of the question as to whether to refer the solicitors to the Legal Services Commission of New South Wales.
IT IS REQUESTED
The Legal Services Commission of New Sout
2: Kennedy & Thorne [2016] FamCAFC 189 | September 26, 2016
Court or Tribunal: Full Court of the Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Binding Financial Agreement, Binding Financial Agreement, Post-Nuptial Agreement, Pre-Nuptial Agreement, Pre-Nuptial Agreement
Judges: Aldridge JCronin JStrickland J
Background: The parties met over the internet in early to mid-2006. She was a 36 year old, born and living overseas with limited English skills. She was previously divorced, had no children and no assets of substance. He was a 67 year old, was a property developer and worth approximately $18 to $24 million. He was divorced from his first wife, with whom he had three children, now all in adulthood. Having met on a dating website in early to mid-2006, the parties then commenced speaking with each other on the telephone. They spoke in English and in (language omitted). The applicant agreed that the deceased said to her: “I will come to (country omitted) and we will see if we like each other. If I like you I will marry you but you will have to sign paper. My money is for my children.”
[Legal Issue]The Federal Circuit Court initially set aside the agreements, finding that they were signed “under duress born of inequality of bargaining power where there was no outcome to her that was fair and reasonable”.
However, the Full Family Court ruled the agreements were binding, and said there had not been duress, undue influence or unconscionable conduct on the husband’s part.
[Court Orders]The appeal be allowed.
Catchwords: Binding Financial Agreement, Binding Financial Agreement, Post-Nuptial Agreement, Pre-Nuptial Agreement, Pre-Nuptial Agreement
Judges: Aldridge JCronin JStrickland J
Background: The parties met over the internet in early to mid-2006. She was a 36 year old, born and living overseas with limited English skills. She was previously divorced, had no children and no assets of substance. He was a 67 year old, was a property developer and worth approximately $18 to $24 million. He was divorced from his first wife, with whom he had three children, now all in adulthood. Having met on a dating website in early to mid-2006, the parties then commenced speaking with each other on the telephone. They spoke in English and in (language omitted). The applicant agreed that the deceased said to her: “I will come to (country omitted) and we will see if we like each other. If I like you I will marry you but you will have to sign paper. My money is for my children.”
[Legal Issue]The Federal Circuit Court initially set aside the agreements, finding that they were signed “under duress born of inequality of bargaining power where there was no outcome to her that was fair and reasonable”.
However, the Full Family Court ruled the agreements were binding, and said there had not been duress, undue influence or unconscionable conduct on the husband’s part.
[Court Orders]The appeal be allowed.