BODILLY & HAND AND ANOR - [2018] FamCA 230

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BODILLY & HAND AND ANOR

[2018] FamCA 230

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Privilege – where there is an issue about what the husband told his psychologist – psychologist wrote letters to medical practitioner – where husband claimed privilege because, it was said, he discussed his legal advice with the psychologist – where the substantive issue is spousal maintenance order discharge – where relevance about the husband’s mental health is deemed by the court not apparently relevant – where documents should not be released.

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Barnes v Commission of Taxation (2007) 242 ALR 601
Hatton v The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Australia and Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia [2000] FamCA 892; (2000) FLC 93-038
Hudson Timber and Hardware Limited v Chaudhary Group Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 832
Killorgan Investments Pty Ltd v Baycorp [2002] VSC 270
Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1
Papadopoulis v Papadopoulos [2007] FamCA 1683
Proudman and Dayman (1941) 62 CLR 536
Trade Practices Commission v Arnotts Limited (No 2) [1989] FCA 248; [1989] 21 FCR 206
White v Tulloch (1995) FLC 92-640

APPLICANT:

Ms Bodilly

RESPONDENT:

Mr Hand

2^ND RESPONDENT:

Ms K Hand

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

10737

2009

DATE DELIVERED:

17 April 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Cronin J

HEARING DATE:

9 April 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr St John QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Pearce Webster Dugdales

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Matta

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Sayer Jones

COUNSEL FOR THE 2^ND
RESPONDENT:

Mr Kaufman

SOLICITOR FOR THE 2^ND RESPONDENT:

Lander & Rogers

Orders

The wife’s application for release of the three letters of Dr U is dismissed.
All outstanding applications are otherwise adjourned to 10.00am on 7 June 2018.

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

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10737 of 2009

Ms Bodilly

Applicant

And

Mr Hand

Respondent

And

Ms K Hand

2^nd Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The current proceedings between Ms Bodilly (“the wife”) and Mr Hand (“the husband”) concern spousal maintenance. The parties have long been divorced but I refer to them in their former status for my convenience only. They were married and arising from that, a spousal maintenance order was made in 2012 which became an obligation of the husband to pay $3323 per week. That sum has…

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 BODILLY & HAND AND ANOR

Details

AGLC: BODILLY & HAND AND ANOR [2018] FamCA 230
Case: [2018] FamCA 230
Decision Date: 17 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this proceeding were Bodilly & Hand (the first applicant) and an unnamed second applicant, and the respondent, whose identity is not specified in the provided text. The dispute concerned an application by the wife for the release of three letters from Dr U. The matter came before Cronin J.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the wife's application for the release of the three letters from Dr U should be granted.

Cronin J dismissed the wife's application for the release of the three letters. No specific reasoning is provided in the excerpt, but the decision indicates a refusal to order the disclosure of these documents. The court otherwise adjourned all outstanding applications to a future date.

Orders

Orders of the court

The wife’s application for release of the three letters of Dr U is dismissed.

All outstanding applications are otherwise adjourned to 10.00am on 7 June 2018.

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

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.