Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Practice and procedure – subpoena and objection to production on grounds of relevance – production of documents by third party – inspection sought of police records – applicable principles – prerequisites to production – whether legitimate forensic purpose in seeking inspection – whether reasonable possibility documents will materially assist applicant’s case – assessment of importance of documents to issue in proceeding – right of objection to production is held by owner of documents – whether party to proceeding has basis to object to inspection or copying of documents – rules of court permit inspection and restrict copying of certain documents – whether documents of apparent relevance – documents said to be irrelevant and prejudicial – parties’ rights to object on basis of relevance or admissibility are matters for trial – objection to subpoena dismissed.
Other texts cited: Carter, Subpoena Law and Practice in Australia (1996)
Applicant:
MS BECKERT
Respondent:
MR BECKERT
File Number:
MLC 13463 of 2017
Judgment of:
Judge A Kelly
Hearing date:
18 December 2018
Date of Last Submission:
18 December 2018
Delivered at:
Melbourne
Delivered on:
21 December 2018
REPRESENTATION
Counsel for the Applicant:
Mr Nehmy
Solicitors for the Applicant:
Sayer Jones Pty Ltd
The Respondent:
In person
Independent Children’s Lawyer:
No appearance
ORDERS
The respondent’s notice of objection to the production of documents upon the subpoena filed on 29 November 2018 and addressed to Victoria Police (subpoena) is dismissed.
Subject to paragraph (3) of this Order, pursuant to rule 15A.13(2)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), the parties may inspect…
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.
Continue reading Beckert & Beckert
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Beckert & Beckert [2018] FCCA 3847
Case
[2018] FCCA 3847
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Judge A Kelly considered an application concerning a subpoena issued to Victoria Police. The respondent had filed a notice of objection to the production of documents sought by this subpoena.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent's objection to the production of documents pursuant to the subpoena was valid. The Court was required to determine the appropriate course of action regarding the production and inspection of these documents.
The Court dismissed the respondent's notice of objection to the production of documents. It ordered that, subject to further conditions, the parties could inspect the documents produced by Victoria Police. However, until further order, inspection was restricted to the parties' legal representatives, and the documents were to be kept confidential and not disclosed to any other person. The costs of the application were reserved.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The respondent’s notice of objection to the production of documents upon the subpoena filed on 29 November 2018 and addressed to Victoria Police (subpoena) is dismissed.
2.
Subject to paragraph (3) of this Order, pursuant to rule 15A.13(2)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), the parties may inspect the documents produced by Victoria Police pursuant to the subpoena.
3.
Until further order, the documents produced by Victoria Police pursuant to the subpoena may be inspected only by the parties’ legal representatives (including the respondent) and shall be kept confidential and not disclosed to any other person.