Cahill and Cahill (No. 2)

In *Cahill and Cahill (No. 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an objection raised by the husband's mother to a subpoena issued by the wife. The subpoena sought various documents from a firm of solicitors concerning the disposition or potential sale of assets of a group of companies, as well as copies of invoices rendered on matters relating to those companies and trusts. The objector contended that the subpoena was oppressive, fishing, and an abuse of process, and that the documents were subject to legal professional privilege and not relevant to the dispute between the husband and wife.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the objector had standing to object to the subpoena, and if so, whether the subpoena should be set aside on the grounds of legal professional privilege, irrelevance, or being oppressive and fishing. The Court was required to determine the appropriate test for relevance in Family Court proceedings and whether the wife had demonstrated a legitimate forensic purpose for seeking the documents, considering the potential invasion of a non-party's privacy.

Justice Cronin found that the objector had sufficient interest to be heard, rejecting the argument that she needed to formally prove her asserted capacities. The Court applied established principles regarding the relevance of subpoenaed documents, noting that relevance is not limited to documents directly admissible in proof of an issue, but extends to documents that could "possibly throw light" on the issues in the main case or have a "sufficient apparent connection" to justify production. The Court considered the wife's allegations regarding a purported agreement for the division of company assets and evidence suggesting communications with the G family regarding a potential sale. Despite the wife's allegations being largely untested, the Court found that there was "apparent relevance" to the issues in dispute, particularly in light of the husband's denials. The Court also considered the wife's assertion of a history of evasiveness in asset disclosure within the family, which, while untested, contributed to the conclusion that the subpoena was not merely a "fishing expedition."

The Court ordered that the documents produced under the subpoena be released for inspection and, if agreed, copying, and otherwise dismissed the objection.