Rapallino & Dekker (No 3)  [2025] FedCFamC1A 60 was a decision of His Honour, Aldridge J, in respect of property settlement proceedings that had been before a Division 1 Judge.   In those proceedings the Appellant Wife was to receive 65%of the asset pool.  Thereafter the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, within time, and the appeal was then heard on 12 February 2025 by a full bench of their Honours, Aldridge, Gill & Strum JJ, and dismissed.  At that point the issue of costs had not been determined with the parties to file written submissions in that regard.  

Almost six weeks later, while still awaiting a decision on costs in the Appeal, the Appellant filed an Application in an Appeal which, on the face of it, sought to re-open the already determined Appeal and also amend the Appeal Application.  It also sought a stay of the already determined appeal.

The Application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, there being no substantive proceedings before the Court, and the applicant ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis, fixed in the sum of $5,000.  This Judgement was delivered on 

8 April 2025 and we wonder if that played any role in the decision on costs of the Appeal, in respect of which a Judgment, being Rapallino & Dekker (No 4)  [2025] FedCFamC1A 62, was delivered three days later on 11 April 2025.  

In that decision, the Appellant was ordered to pay the Respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis, fixed in the sum of $40,532.60.  Their Honours found the appeal to be entirely without merit.  In addition, the Appellant took the opportunity, through the written submissions on costs, to seek to re-open the already determined appeal and adduce further evidence which was not entertained as it was not the purpose of the written submissions.

The Appellant was self-represented throughout, although the total costs of $45,532.60 may have been better spent on legal representation.