Binav & Rangar

Case [2025] FedCFamC2F 436

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Binav & Rangar [2025] FedCFamC2F 436

File number(s): SYC 7645 of 2022
Judgment of: JUDGE COLQUHOUN
Date of judgment: 7 April 2025
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – objection to subpoena for lack of legitimate forensic purpose – objection to production based on religious confession privilege – section 127 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
Legislation:

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 127

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 6.29
Cases cited:

Bloc (ACT) Pty Ltd v Crafted Capital Pty Ltd (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 178

Osferatu & Osferatu [2015] FamCA 441

R v Vincent; R v Young(No 2) [2021] ACTSC 50

Vissell & Vissell [2021] FamCAFC 76

X Pty Ltd & Merhi [2015] FamCA 622
Division: Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs: 50
Date of hearing: 4 March 2025
Place: Sydney
For the Applicant: Litigant in person
Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Benel of FB Legal
Solicitor for the Other: Ms Metry of SKM Lawyers
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Mason of Mason Mia & Associates - excused from appearing on this occasion

ORDERS

SYC 7645 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:

MR BINAV

Applicant
AND:

MS RANGAR

Respondent

B CHURCH

Other

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE COLQUHOUN

DATE OF ORDER:

7 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The objection to the subpoena issued to the Proper Officer, B Church is partially upheld.

2.The Registry is directed to destroy any documents already produced in answer to the subpoena to B Church within 14 days of the date of this order.

3.Within 14 days of the date of these Orders B Church is to:

(a)Produce the following documents from the Church's File No …:

(i)a “Marital Conflict Application Form” dated 30 October 2022 submitted by the father

(ii)identity records for the father;

(iii)medical report for the mother (provided by the father);

(iv)divorce order dated 8 March 2023;

(v)character reference written by Mr C for the father;

(vi)“Marriage Permit” certificate issued to the father dated mid-2024; and

(b)Ascertain if either of the following documents from the Church's File No … refer to the making or content of any admission of actual or perceived wrongdoing by the mother to any member of the Clergy of B Church:

(i)notes of the Council “regarding the wife”; and

(ii)the Council's reasons for the decision; and

(c)Produce any document referred to in sub-paragraph 3(b) if it does not refer to the making or content of any such admission.

4.There be no order as to costs.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13

Continue reading Binav & Rangar

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Binav & Rangar [2025] FedCFamC2F 436
Case
[2025] FedCFamC2F 436
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Binav sought an order objecting to a subpoena issued to the Proper Officer, B Church, on the basis that the subpoena had no legitimate forensic purpose and that the respondent, Ms Rangar, had made religious confessions to B Church that were protected by privilege. The matter was heard in the Family Division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the subpoena to B Church was valid and enforceable, particularly in light of the objections based on the lack of legitimate forensic purpose and the religious confession privilege. Additionally, the court needed to determine which documents, if any, should be produced from B Church's files.

The court considered the scope and purpose of the subpoena and found that some of the requested documents had a legitimate forensic purpose. However, the court also recognised that certain religious confessions could be privileged. The court concluded that the objection to the subpoena was partially upheld, as only certain documents were to be produced. Specifically, the court directed that the registry destroy any documents already produced and ordered the production of specified documents from B Church's files, while ascertaining if other documents contained any religious confessions. The court held that if the ascertained documents did not refer to religious confessions, they were to be produced. The court found no basis for an order regarding costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 7645 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MR BINAV

Applicant

AND:

MS RANGAR

Respondent

B CHURCH

Other

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE COLQUHOUN

DATE OF ORDER:

7 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The objection to the subpoena issued to the Proper Officer, B Church is partially upheld.

2. The Registry is directed to destroy any documents already produced in answer to the subpoena to B Church within 14 days of the date of this order.

3. Within 14 days of the date of these Orders B Church is to:

(a) Produce the following documents from the Church's File No …:

(i) a “Marital Conflict Application Form” dated 30 October 2022 submitted by the father

(ii) identity records for the father;

(iii) medical report for the mother (provided by the father);

(iv) divorce order dated 8 March 2023;

(v) character reference written by Mr C for the father;

(vi) “Marriage Permit” certificate issued to the father dated mid-2024; and

(b) Ascertain if either of the following documents from the Church's File No … refer to the making or content of any admission of actual or perceived wrongdoing by the mother to any member of the Clergy of B Church:

(i) notes of the Council “regarding the wife”; and

(ii) the Council's reasons for the decision; and

(c) Produce any document referred to in sub-paragraph 3(b) if it does not refer to the making or content of any such admission.

4. There be no order as to costs.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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.