Anderson and Anderson and Ors - [2014] FamCA 491

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ANDERSON & ANDERSON AND ORS

[2014] FamCA 491

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Subpoenae – objections on the ground of relevance – relevance established – importance of discovery being undertaken before the issuing of subpoena.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Cahill & Cahill (No 2) [2013] FamCA 546
Hatton, VF & Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia [2000] FamCA 892; (2000) FLC 93-038
Hudson Timber and Hardware Ltd v Chaudhary Group Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 832
Macdowell v Williams [2012] FamCA 479
Portal Software International Pty Ltd v Bodsworth, [2005] NSWSC 1115
Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (no 11) [2006] FCA 174
Trade Practices Commission v Arnotts Ltd (No 2)(1989) 88 ALR 90
Woley & Humboldt (No 3) [2009] FamCA 546

APPLICANT:

Ms Anderson

RESPONDENT:

Mr Anderson

FIRST OBJECTOR:

Law Firm K

SECOND OBJECTOR:

Mr Rankin

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

11091

2013

DATE DELIVERED:

10 July 2014

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Cronin J

HEARING DATE:

1, 2 July 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Strum

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Taussig Cherrie Fildes

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Williams

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Coote Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST OBJECTOR:

Ms Bennett

SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST OBJECTOR:

Law Firm K

COUNSEL FOR THE
SECOND OBJECTOR:

Ms Morton

SOLICITOR FOR THE
SECOND OBJECTOR:

Sladen Legal

Orders

That the amended objection by Mr Rankin filed 30 June 2014 is dismissed.
That Mr Rankin forthwith comply with the provisions of Categories 1 to 6 of the schedule to the subpoena addressed to him filed 19 June 2014.
That the objection by Law Firm K is dismissed.
That all documents provided by Law Firm K pursuant to the subpoena filed 17 June 2014 are released for inspection and copying subject only to any further application in relation to any confidentiality agreement.
That there be liberty to apply.
That there be liberty to apply specifically in relation to issues of costs arising out of these orders.
That all extant interim applications are otherwise adjourned for hearing by the Honourable Justice Macmillan on a date to be fixed to be notified by the Court.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Anderson & Anderson and Ors has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 11091 of 2013

Ms Anderson

Applicant

And

Mr Anderson

Respondent

And

Law Firm K

First Objector

And

Mr Rankin

Second Objector

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ms Anderson (“the wife”) and Mr Anderson (“the husband”) are involved in financial proceedings in this Court. The wife began the proceedings by application filed on 18 December 2013. Relevantly, she sought imprecise orders relating to spousal maintenance and child support. The husband filed a response on 4 February 2014. Again relevantly, he sought that the former “matrimonial home” be sold and after the discharge of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Anderson and Anderson and Ors and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] FamCA 491
Decision Date: 10 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Anderson and Anderson and Ors, Cronin J considered objections to subpoenas issued in proceedings between the parties. The primary dispute involved objections raised by Mr Rankin and Law Firm K concerning the production of documents pursuant to subpoenas served upon them.

The court was required to determine whether the objections raised by Mr Rankin and Law Firm K to the subpoenas were valid. Specifically, the court had to consider the scope of the subpoenas and the grounds upon which production of the requested documents could be resisted, including any potential claims of privilege or confidentiality.

Cronin J dismissed Mr Rankin's amended objection, ordering him to comply with categories 1 to 6 of the schedule to the subpoena addressed to him. Similarly, the objection by Law Firm K was dismissed, and the documents provided by them pursuant to their subpoena were ordered to be released for inspection and copying, subject to any future applications concerning confidentiality agreements. The court also granted liberty to apply, particularly in relation to costs arising from these orders, and adjourned all other extant interim applications for hearing by Justice Macmillan.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the amended objection by Mr Rankin filed 30 June 2014 is dismissed.

That Mr Rankin forthwith comply with the provisions of Categories 1 to 6 of the schedule to the subpoena addressed to him filed 19 June 2014.

That the objection by Law Firm K is dismissed.

That all documents provided by Law Firm K pursuant to the subpoena filed 17 June 2014 are released for inspection and copying subject only to any further application in relation to any confidentiality agreement.

That there be liberty to apply.

That there be liberty to apply specifically in relation to issues of costs arising out of these orders.

That all extant interim applications are otherwise adjourned for hearing by the Honourable Justice Macmillan on a date to be fixed to be notified by the Court.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.