BANKS & LOFFLER

Case [2015] FamCA 380


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BANKS & LOFFLER [2015] FamCA 380
FAMILY LAW – EVIDENCE – Harman Undertaking – where father seeks to use material filed in these proceedings in his criminal proceedings – where no objection taken by mother – orders made allowing the release of affidavit and subpoena material for limited purpose.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 121
Hearne & Street (2008) 235 CLR 125
APPLICANT: Mr Banks
RESPONDENTS: Ms Loffler
FILE NUMBER: ADC 2014 of 2014
DATE DELIVERED: 14 May 2015
PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide
PLACE HEARD: Adelaide
JUDGMENT OF: Dawe J
HEARING DATE: 14 May 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Idema
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: D’Angelo Kavanagh
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr B
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: John Charles Mattner

Orders

  1. The applicant be permitted to provide copies of the following documents to the Director of Public Prosecutions, his criminal law barristers and solicitors, South Australian Police and the District Court of South Australia:

    (a)The mother’s Response filed 5 September 2014;

    (b)The mother’s Affidavit filed 5 September 2014;

    (c)  The Affidavit of John Charles Mattner filed 5 September 2014;

    (d)The Notice of Risk filed 5 September 2014 by the mother;

    (e)The subpoena material listed as items S6 and S10 PROVIDED THAT does not include the confidential material in S10.

  2. The release of copies of all documents is restricted to and limited for use by the applicant father’s barristers and solicitors, the Director of Public Prosecutions, South Australian Police and the District Court of South Australia for the criminal proceedings filed against the applicant father.

  3. The father’s Application in a Case filed on 17 March 2015 is dismissed and removed from the active pending cases list.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Banks & Loffler 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 ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 2014 of 2014

Mr Banks

Applicant

And

Ms Loffler

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. I am being asked to make orders this morning in relation to the release of material which has been filed by the mother and other party in these proceedings which relate to the care and welfare of one of the children of the mother and father and proceedings between the father, mother and grandmother of the child. 

  2. The father is currently facing criminal proceedings in relation to another child, significant criminal proceedings which are to be heard in the District Court in July 2015.  I am being asked now by the father to give him permission to use documents filed in the Family Court of Australia proceedings in his defence of the criminal proceedings.

  3. The application originally referred to section 121 and being released from the same, but counsel appropriately indicated that he was not now relying upon section 121 but seeking a release of the information pursuant to the Court’s power to release the parties from what has in…

Continue reading BANKS & LOFFLER

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
BANKS & LOFFLER [2015] FamCA 380
Case
[2015] FamCA 380
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Banks & Loffler*, Dawe J of the Supreme Court of South Australia considered an application by a father seeking to release certain documents from family court proceedings for use in criminal proceedings against him. The dispute concerned the extent to which documents filed in the Family Court, including responses, affidavits, and subpoena material, could be disclosed to parties involved in the criminal proceedings, namely the Director of Public Prosecutions, his legal representatives, South Australian Police, and the District Court.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether to grant permission for the disclosure of these documents, and if so, under what conditions. This involved balancing the father's need to use the documents for his defence in the criminal proceedings against potential privacy concerns or restrictions on the use of such documents. The Court also had to determine the fate of the father's separate application filed on 17 March 2015.

Dawe J reasoned that the disclosure of specific documents, including the mother's Response and Affidavit of 5 September 2014, the Affidavit of John Charles Mattner of 5 September 2014, the Notice of Risk filed by the mother on 5 September 2014, and certain subpoena material (excluding confidential material from item S10), was permissible. This permission was expressly limited to use by the father's legal representatives, the Director of Public Prosecutions, South Australian Police, and the District Court of South Australia, solely for the purpose of the criminal proceedings against the father. The Court also ordered that the father's Application in a Case filed on 17 March 2015 be dismissed and removed from the active pending cases list.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The applicant be permitted to provide copies of the following documents to the Director of Public Prosecutions, his criminal law barristers and solicitors, South Australian Police and the District Court of South Australia:

(a) The mother’s Response filed 5 September 2014;

(b) The mother’s Affidavit filed 5 September 2014;

(c) The Affidavit of John Charles Mattner filed 5 September 2014;

(d) The Notice of Risk filed 5 September 2014 by the mother;

(e) The subpoena material listed as items S6 and S10 PROVIDED THAT does not include the confidential material in S10.

2.

The release of copies of all documents is restricted to and limited for use by the applicant father’s barristers and solicitors, the Director of Public Prosecutions, South Australian Police and the District Court of South Australia for the criminal proceedings filed against the applicant father.

3.

The father’s Application in a Case filed on 17 March 2015 is dismissed and removed from the active pending cases list.

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.