My name is Mark and thanks for visiting.
I am a lawyer – but not one of those who drive a BMW and charge in 6 minute intervals. I started The Legal Eagle over 7 years ago because many of you find that the law is confusing and getting help is expensive. That’s not a good combination when you really need to solve a problem or find out what your rights are under the law.
So think of The Legal Eagle as a helpful place for easy to understand information about family law, consumer rights, and dealing with those nightmare neighbours.
Oh, and if you would like to know more about me and my background…it’s allHERE.
Thinking about posting about your Family Court Proceedings on the web? This includes Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and any other social media platform out there on that big old wild frontier known as the internet. A place where these days misplaced “courage” and anger seems to know no bounds.
Section 121 of the Family Law Act prohibits the publication of details relating to Family Court Proceedings where that publication identifies the parties or other details set out below.
Consequences for breaching Section 121 of the Family Law Act can include a term of imprisonment and you don’y want to end up there by being a “keyboard warrior”. Section 121 (1) of the Family Law Act 1975 states that:-
A person who publishes in a newspaper or periodical publication, by radio broadcast or television or by other electronic means (think social media) , or otherwise disseminates to the public or to a section of the public by any means, any account of any proceedings, or of any part of any proceedings, under this Act that identifies:-
A party to the proceedings;
A person who is related to, or associated with, a party to the proceedings, or is alleged to be, in any other way concerned in the matter to which the proceedings relate; or
A witness in the proceedings;
commits an offence punishable, upon conviction, by imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year.
The above makes it very important for anyone thinking of posting something about their Family Court Proceedings or just having a rant, to seriously think carefully about what they are posting before doing it.
The message here is clear, just remember that whilst being involved in Family Court Proceedings can, more often than not, be very stressful and at times frustrating, the likes of Facebook and other social media platforms are not the place to air those frustrations and or your anger at the system.
Don’t forget to check out all the great family law resources we have online atThe Legal Eagleand if you need some low cost assistance with preparing for court we would be more than happy to help! Drop our fab paralegal a line and we’ll wash those worries away:
Family law is a unique area of law, because of the amount of people that have access to the family law system in Australia at any given time. Disputes usually arise from husbands and wifes and mums and dads being unable to resolve their problems privately, and so the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) gives everyone access to the Court for that assistance whether you are a self representer, legal aid funded or have a fancy pants lawyer.
Now the problem with those high priced fancy pants lawyers is that they tend to generate big bills particularly if one or both parties are up for the FIGHT! Often I hear from people who are so frazzled by the other parties tactics to litigate, litigate and litigate that the question is posed – Can I get my costs back in dealing with a highly litigious opposing number?
Well it isn’t quite that easy…
The Rule…
In family law the general rule that each party is responsible for their own legal costs. In matters where litigation can stretch for months and years (sound familiar?), this is always very significant factor.
Each time a party applies for the other party to pay some or all of their legal costs, they are required to establish to the Court that the circumstances of their case warrants a departure from that general rule. When considering this, the Court will take into account:
the parties’ financial circumstances, and any legal aid grants;
the position of the parties, and their conduct before the Court;
if the proceedings were due to a breach of existing Court Orders; and,
attempts made to settle the matter, and anything else the Judge considers relevant.
And for self representers it’s always scary to see in the other party’s orders and application that they are seeking costs. But in 99% of cases it’s just tactical hot air as the chance of getting costs is relatively low unless the party being asked for costs is being an absolute nuisance with endless and unnecessary applications.
A mother who last year made over 20 contravention applications comes to mind!
Funny thing was her excuse for a lawyer was happy to do them all at no doubt enormous cost to both her and the poor unfortunate self representing dad who had to respond to all of them!
Even when a costs order is made, the Judge dealing with the matter has to decide whether to make a cost order on a limited basis (scaled, or party/party costs), or indemnity costs (meaning that every dollar paid by the successful party will be reimbursed by the other side).
In the matter of Jaros & Calden, a case heard in the Federal Circuit Court in Adelaide in August 2019, the issue of indemnity costs were explored by Judge Heffernan:
“Such an order involves a very significant departure from the ordinary course and should only be made in exceptional circumstances. […] Some categories of matter in which it has been held appropriate to make an order for indemnity costs have been: where a party makes allegations of fraud knowing them to be false; or a party makes irrelevant allegations of fraud; evidence of particular misconduct that causes loss of time to the Court and to other parties; the fact that proceedings had been instituted and maintained for an ulterior motive; where proceedings have been commenced in disregard of known facts, or clearly established law; and, the making of allegations which ought never to have been made or a case based on groundless contentions.
I am satisfied by virtue of […]the conduct of the father in the proceedings, his making of allegations which were not reasonably capable of belief, his deliberate non-compliance with orders of the Court; and what he must have well known to be the hardship caused to the wife in having to make the Application by reason of her difficult financial circumstances, that an order for costs on an indemnity basis is justified in this case with respect to the Application in a Case. Parties must be dissuaded from making baseless allegations, disobeying Court orders for tactical reasons, using children as weapons in a litigious war of attrition and wasting Court time. When all of those features are present, as they are here, they are matters which can tip the balance in favour of an exercise of the Court’s discretion to make an exceptional order for indemnity costs. They have done so on this occasion.”
So in conclusion…
The matter of Jaros & Calden highlights that whilst indemnity cost Orders are uncommon and should not be expected by parties in family law litigation, a party who has been forced to incur legal costs in an unreasonable situation, may be able to seek costs from the other side.
Although good luck with getting a favourable outcome!
If you need free family law resources or low cost assistance with your applications and affidavits pop on by toThe Legal Eagle: www.TheLegalEagle.com.au or drop Abbey (our fab paralegal) a line at
My name is Mark and thanks for visiting.
