Canavan & Dowd

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.