16 Oct 2023
Recorded audio and video evidence demonstrated the 8 July 2022 events were a parenting dispute over interpretation of contact orders, not abusive conduct by respondent; respondent did not enter property or use abusive language and had proper reason (waiting for police) to remain nearby, so no act or acts amounting to family violence were established and a protection order was not necessary; appeal dismissed.
13 Sept 2023
The Court found no evidence of imminent risk to the remaining properties, the applicant delayed after the earlier transfer and undertakings were given to preserve the assets; applying r14.8 and balancing the factors, the proper outcome was that costs in relation to the interlocutory application should lie where they fall and need not be reserved until the substantive proceeding.
8 Dec 2022
Because the settlement represented a compromise with mutual undertakings, there was no court determination of the merits and no evidence of unreasonable conduct, the court could not identify a successful party and therefore ordered that costs lie where they fall.
23 Sept 2022
Because both parties were partially successful—the respondents succeeded in challenging the adequacy of charging orders and undertakings and the applicants succeeded in offering a registered mortgage and some funds—the court concluded it was not consistent with the general costs principle to award costs to either party; therefore costs lie where they fell.
5 Apr 2022
Given the facts, including the evasive responses from the respondent's advisers and the applicant's legitimate concern about dissipation of estate assets, the Court exercised discretion to grant costs to the applicant for commencement of the proceedings; costs are to be awarded on a 2B basis but assessed on the District Court scales rather than the High Court scales.
8 Dec 2021
Though psychological family violence was found, the Family Court and High Court correctly held a protection order was not necessary because the applicant's protection could be achieved by alternative, enforceable measures (written undertakings, judicial oversight, active case management and parenting orders); the proposed questions of law were not bona fide, seriously arguable or of sufficient public importance to justify leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
21 May 2021
The Judge concluded that the justification for the freezing order no longer persisted and therefore the freezing order should lapse; ancillary disclosure orders were stayed pending further submissions and an undertaking was requested from Kohiti Ltd, with costs reserved and a timetable for filing memoranda ordered.
17 May 2021
Grant partial stay: decline stay in respect of $300,000 of the $449,635.85 judgment sum and allow that amount to be paid to respondents conditional on formal undertakings by the Bradleys and the Carrs; keep $149,000 in applicant's solicitor trust to ensure immediate repayment ability if appeal succeeds. Decision based on balancing prejudice, finding respondents have sufficient assets (shareholder loan and family home equity) and binding undertakings provide adequate security for the retained portion while protecting applicant's access to some funds.
5 May 2021
The interlocutory application for interim relief was declined because the risk that further investigatory steps would render the appeal nugatory was insufficient and adequate safeguards could be imposed to address confidentiality risks; consequently the respondents successfully resisted the application and are entitled to costs of $5,975.
22 Dec 2020
Given the real risk that the first respondent could discharge the mortgage, sell the property and dissipate net sale proceeds, the Court ordered that the caveat not lapse because the applicant would suffer irreparable harm absent the order; leave was reserved for respondents to apply to set aside and undertakings by the first respondent could permit removal of the caveat.