Damberg v Damberg (No 2) [2001] NSWCA 433

Damberg v Damberg (No 2) [2001] NSWCA 433

Because the First Respondent actually paid the judgment debts to the Second and Third Respondents, she was the person entitled to restitution. Although the Second and Third Respondents proposed paying approximately half to the Appellant, the Appellant's proposal that repayment be made to the First Respondent better reflected the restitutionary position and the Family Court arrangements. The Schedule J judgment interest rates applied, and there was no sufficient basis to vary the existing costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Family Court of Australia / Decided on Written Submissions Following Reasons for Judgment Published on 25 May 2001
Outcome
Further orders made; Appellant and Second and Third Respondents directed to file agreed short minutes as to repayment amounts; no order as to costs of the argument leading to the further orders.
Legal Topics
['repayment of Judgment Sums After Successful Appeal' "suitors' Fund Act Certificates" 'interest on Judgment Debts' 'variation of Costs Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'family Law' 'restitution' 'costs'] ['repayment of Judgment Sums After Successful Appeal' "suitors' Fund Act Certificates" 'interest on Judgment Debts' 'variation of Costs Orders']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Family Court of Australia / Decided on Written Submissions Following Reasons for Judgment Published on 25 May 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Second and Third Respondents should receive certificates pursuant to s 6 of the Suitors' Fund Act 1951." 'Whether Order 6 made on 25 May 2001 should be varied as to costs.' "Whether repayment of amounts paid under Purdy J's orders should be made to the Appellant or to the First Respondent." 'What interest rate should apply to repayment of the judgment sums.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the First Respondent actually paid the judgment debts to the Second and Third Respondents, she was the person entitled to restitution. Although the Second and Third Respondents proposed paying approximately half to the Appellant, the Appellant's proposal that repayment be made to the First Respondent better reflected the restitutionary position and the Family Court arrangements. The Schedule J judgment interest rates applied, and there was no sufficient basis to vary the existing costs order.

Court Disposition

Further orders made; Appellant and Second and Third Respondents directed to file agreed short minutes as to repayment amounts; no order as to costs of the argument leading to the further orders.

Orders

  • ["That the Second Respondent have a certificate pursuant to s 6 of the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 in respect of the appeal by the Appellant against Order 1 made by Purdy J." "That the Third Respondent have a certificate pursuant to s 6 of the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 in respect of the appeal by the Appellant against Order...