Holbert & Holbert (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 337 (23 May 2025)

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. On 12 February 2025, for Reasons published (see Holbert & Holbert (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 77), the Court made Orders for the husband, Mr Holbert ("the husband") to pay to the wife, Ms Holbert ("the wife"), a sum of $33,000 in respect of some costs claimed by the wife.
2. Additionally, again for Reasons explained, the Court offered the wife an opportunity to seek and quantify further costs, and directed she file and serve an affidavit by 31 March 2025 setting out further particulars.
3. On 31 March 2025, an affidavit sworn by the wife's solicitor was filed, whereby the wife seeks further costs by reason of the husband failing "to complete full and timely disclosure". On the basis deposed to in that further affidavit, at paragraph 35, the wife seeks an order for costs of $1,352.51 of which is particularised at paragraph 34.
4. On 29 April 2025, the husband (who represents himself) filed an affidavit in reply and relevantly deposed that:
   1. The decision of the Honourable Justice Baumann to award additional costs against me for earlier parts of the process where orders were made by consent without even reviewing the circumstances behind these agreed orders would appear to be an improper exercise of judicial discretion.
   2. However, given the relatively small sums claimed by the wife I do not intend to dispute these costs.
5. A more careful reading of my earlier Reasons, and Order 2 made 12 February 2025, reveals that rather than having decided that the husband was liable for costs for some earlier events (even consent orders), on the submissions available at that time, the Court invited further submissions.
6. Where there now seems to be no contest to the order I now make as set out at the commencement of these Reasons, I make such an order.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Baumann.