Abad-Booton and Abad-Booton

[2009] FamCA 678

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ABAD-BOOTON & ABAD-BOOTON [2009] FamCA 678

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURe – Subpoena – objection on the grounds of relevance – family trust where husband is an eligible beneficiary as to income and capital – Sufficient basis to say that there is apparent relevance. 
FAMILY LAW – COSTS – where husband should have provided the documents under chapter 13 of the Rules

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

British American Tobacco Services Australia Limited v John Fairfax Publications Ltd [2006] NSWS 1328
O’Hara & O’Hara and Ors [2007] FamCA 1346

APPLICANT: Ms Abad-Booton

RESPONDENT: Mr Abad-Booton

FILE NUMBER: MLC 6879 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 24 JULY 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CRONIN

HEARING DATE: 24 JULY 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: MR HOWE

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: HUGHES WATSON MARKS KENNEDY

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: MR RENWICK

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

KENNEDY GUY

FOR MR J BOOTON, DIRECTOR OF

THE BOOTON GROUP (VIC) PTY LTD:

MR SIRIANNI

Orders

1. That The Booton Group (Vic) Pty Ltd provide to the solicitors for the wife, the financial statements of the company for the period of five years until now along with the tax returns for those years.

2. That the said documents be provided direct to the solicitors for the wife within 28 days.

3. That the wife pay the objector’s costs fixed in the sum of $385 but the husband show cause why he should not indemnify the wife in respect of that payment.

4. That formal reasons be subsequently published.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Abad-Booton & Abad-Booton is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 6879  of 2007

MS ABAD-BOOTON

Applicant

And

MR ABAD-BOOTON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 19 June 2007, the wife filed an application for final orders which sought inter alia:

   That the Honourable Court determine a property division as it deems fit.

2. No further amended application has been lodged. A financial questionnaire was filed for the first day of the trial. The wife prepared it herself and it said that what she wanted was a property at D and a car park in P. Reading the handwritten document and specifically the pages before that proposal, I could not be satisfied that she understood what she was doing.

3. On 17 February 2009, the husband filed an amended application for final orders in which he sought:

   That each of the parties retain all assets and property in their respective ownership and possession as at the current date.

4. I am now dealing with a dispute over material that should have been produced under a subpoena.

5. Counsel for the wife sought to defend the subpoena and in the course of his submissions said that the wife was entitled to a share of the assets of the husband’s brothers and sister. That statement at this stage was based upon a view held…