Canavan & Dowd

Case [2023] FedCFamC1F 207


FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Canavan & Dowd [2023] FedCFamC1F 207   

File number(s): MLC 9945 of 2020
Judgment of: JOHNS J
Date of judgment: 23 February 2023
Catchwords:  FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the parties seek an order permitting them to provide documents filed in these proceedings to lawyers representing them in criminal proceedings – where the orders sought would require an exemption from the Harman obligation – where there is substantial commonality in the two sets of proceedings – where the respondent does not oppose the orders being made – where the documents sought to be disclosed are likely to assist the second court in its determination – where the parties are involved in both proceedings – where it is appropriate for orders to be made permitting the release of documents  
Legislation:

 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 121

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules 2021 (Cth), Rule 6.04  

Cases cited:  Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Office [1983] 1 AC 280
Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 10
Date of hearing: 23 February 2023
Place: Melbourne
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Kildea
Solicitor for the Applicant: Morrison and Sawers
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Geddes
Solicitor for the Respondent: SMR Legal
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Brennan
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Victoria Legal Aid

ORDERS

MLC 9945 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS CANAVAN

Applicant

AND:

MR DOWD

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

order made by:

JOHNS J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 FEBRUARY 2023

BY CONSENT THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The parties attend a private mediation with Ms B between 17 May 2023 and 17 June 2023 at the parties’ joint expense.

2.Within 21 days of the date of these orders, the parties do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to appoint C Pty Ltd to prepare updated valuation reports, at the husband’s expense, of the following real properties:

(a)D Street, E Town in the State of New South Wales at the husband’s sole expense; and

(b)F Street, E Town in the State of New South Wales at the parties’ equal expense.

BY THE COURT IT IS ORDERED

3.The Applicant Wife and the Respondent Husband and their legal advisers be released of the obligation of the implied undertakings to this court in Harman v Secretary of State for Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280 with respect to:

(a)any document sworn or affirmed by a parent in these proceedings and filed in this Court in these proceedings being MLC 9945/2020, including the parties’ trial material to be filed on 6 April 2023 and 1 May 2023;

(b)affidavit of Dr H filed 21 July 2022 together with the two reports dated 18 July 2022 annexed thereto;

(c)affidavit of Ms G filed 19 July 2022 together with the Family Report dated 18 April 2022 annexed thereto and any report prepared by Ms G following the…

Continue reading Canavan & Dowd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Canavan & Dowd [2023] FedCFamC1F 207
Case
[2023] FedCFamC1F 207
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Canavan and Dowd was heard by Johns J in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The dispute involved the husband's application to release certain documents filed in the family law proceedings to his lawyers in the criminal proceedings. The wife did not oppose the husband's application. The court was required to determine whether it should release the parties from the Harman obligation, which restricts the use of documents filed in one court to the proceedings in which they were filed.

The court considered the factors relevant to the release from the Harman obligation, including the commonality of subject matter between the two sets of proceedings and the potential assistance of the documents to the second court in determining issues of credit. The court found that there was a significant overlap in subject matter between the two proceedings, and both parties sought to rely on the documents for the purposes of the criminal proceedings. The court was satisfied that there was no prejudice to the parties in producing the documents in the criminal proceedings, and both parties were aware of the matters contained in the material proposed to be produced. The court held that the circumstances justified the production of the material in the Local Court proceedings.

The court made orders permitting the husband and wife and their legal advisers to use the specified documents in the criminal proceedings. The orders also limited the relief from the implied Harman obligation to the use of the documents in the specified criminal proceedings and any superior court to which the criminal proceedings may be referred, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the New South Wales Police, and any practitioner appeared on behalf of or advising the parties in relation to the criminal proceedings. The court dismissed all extant interim applications and declared that none of the parties nor their legal advisers would be in breach of section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) by using any of the documents referred to in the orders for the purpose set out in the orders, and such use would not constitute a breach.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.