FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BONDELMONTE AND ORS & BONDELMONTE | [2017] FamCA 924 |
| FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interim – Where the wife has commenced proceedings pursuant to s 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the wife alleges that the husband failed to fully disclose his financial circumstances at the time a property settlement order was made by consent – Where the husband and his brother were applicants in a hearing in the Federal Court of Australia and the wife seeks to inspect documents on that file – Where an order was previously made allowing the wife to inspect all documents produced by the Federal Court subject to any objection being raised by a party to the Federal Court proceedings – Where the applicants are the husband’s brother, sister in law and four companies which the husband control – Where the applicants oppose the wife inspecting certain documents – Where the applicants claim that the wife’s request to inspect failed to comply with Rule 15.34 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – Where that rule does not stand in the way of a court making an order requesting documents from the Federal Court in circumstances where a party has not strictly complied with that rule – Where the applicants claim there has been a lack of procedural fairness – Where there has been no lack of procedural fairness – Where the applicants assert the wife’s request is irrelevant and a fishing expedition – Where the reasons delivered in the Federal Court proceedings demonstrate significant interconnection between the husband and other family members which could be relevant to the wife’s s 79A application but does not refer to her sister in law – Where the wife is ordered not to inspect identified documents involving her sister in law – Where confidentiality orders have been made in the Federal Court proceedings in respect to certain documents and orders are made that the wife not inspect those documents – Where it is asserted that the wife’s request is in breach of the Harman obligation – Where there is only one affidavit specifically identified as being subject to the Harman obligation – Where the Harman obligation applies to the wife – Where the court has implied power to make an order allowing the wife to inspect the documents produced by the Federal Court – Where there are special circumstances to make an order allowing the wife to inspect documents. |
| Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) |
Continue reading Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte [2017] FamCA 924
- Case
- [2017] FamCA 924
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the wife should be permitted to inspect the eight affidavits in respect of which the Federal Court had already made confidentiality orders. A secondary issue was whether the husband's application to set aside the orders of 4 July 2016 should be granted.
Watts J determined that the wife was not to inspect the eight affidavits subject to existing confidentiality orders, unless further leave was granted by the Federal Court. The court also ordered that the wife was not to inspect a further five affidavits. The husband's amended application to set aside the orders of 4 July 2016 was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Subject to any further leave the Federal Court might grant, the wife not inspect eight affidavits in respect of which the Federal Court has made a confidentiality order:
1.1. The affidavit of Mr GG dated 14 January 2015;
1.2. The affidavit of Mr GG dated 15 January 2015;
1.3. The affidavit of Mr HH dated 28 January 2015;
1.4. The affidavit of Mr GG dated 28 January 2015;
1.5. The affidavit of Mr II dated 28 January 2015;
1.6. The affidavit of Mr II dated 29 January 2015;
1.7. The affidavit of Mr II sworn 10 February 2015; and
1.8. The affidavit of Mr II sworn 10 February 2015.
2.
The wife is not to inspect the following affidavits:
2.1. The affidavit of Mr GG dated 11 February 2016;
2.2. The affidavit of Mr JJ dated 19 February 2016;
2.3. The affidavit of Mr JJ dated 17 March 2016;
2.4. The affidavit of Mr MM dated 22 March 2016; and
2.5. The affidavit of Mr GG dated 17 May 2016.
3.
Otherwise the applicants’ Amended Application in a Case filed 29 November 2016 to set aside the orders of 4 July 2016 is dismissed.
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.