Churchill and Wileman (No.3)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CHURCHILL & WILEMAN (No.3) [2016] FCCA 2596

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Procedural – Whether the father should be given leave to issue eleven subpoenas seeking production of documents – where the dispute between the parties is whether the father should be ordered to pay the mother’s costs of and incidental to parenting proceedings - whether in this context the subpoenas serve a legitimate forensic purpose.

Legislation:
Family Law Act, s.117
Federal Circuit Court Rules, r.15A

Cases cited:
Churchill & Wileman (No.2) [2016] FCCA 107

Australian Gas Light Company v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2003] FCA 1101

Applicant: MR CHURCHILL

Respondent: MS WILEMAN

File Number: NCC 2771 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Terry

Hearing date:	20 June 2016
Date of Last Submission:	20 June 2016

Delivered at: Newcastle

Delivered on: 7 October 2016

REPRESENTATION

Solicitor Advocate for the Applicant:

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Ms Phillipos

YJP Legal

Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Lloyd
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Bridge Street Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The father is refused leave to issue subpoenas to:

   (a)AEIOU Foundation for Children with Autism in (omitted) Queensland;

   (b)Autism Spectrum Australia (omitted) NSW;

   (c)(omitted) Early Learning Childhood Intervention Service in (omitted);

   (d)Roads & Maritime Service NSW;

   (e)Department of Transport and Main Roads;

   (f)VicRoads;

   (g)(omitted) Credit Union;

   (h)(omitted) Pty Ltd;

   (i)(omitted) Pty Ltd;

   (j)(omitted) Bank;

   (k)(omitted) Pty Ltd;

2. The matter is adjourned to 4.15pm on 12 December 2016 for submissions in respect of the application for costs filed on 8 March 2016.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Churchill & Wileman (No.3) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT NEWCASTLE

NCC 2771 of 2013

MR CHURCHILL

Applicant

And

MS WILEMAN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The only live application between the parties in this matter is an application by the mother for an order that the father pay her costs of and incidental to parenting proceedings fixed in the sum of $104,161.00.

2. The parenting proceedings concerned the parties’ only child X who was born on (omitted) 2011.

3. The mother sought orders that she have sole parental responsibility for X and that he live with her and spend no time with and have no communication with the father. She also sought an order that she be permitted to relocate from (omitted) to the (omitted) region. She said that the purpose of this was so that she could enrol X at the (omitted) Clinic in (omitted).

4. It was the mother’s case that she was subjected to serious family violence by the father during the party’s short relationship and that X had suffered developmental trauma as a result.

5. The father strenuously denied that he had been violent to the mother to the extent she alleged and said that it would be in X’s best interest to have a relationship with him. He said at trial that he accepted that X may be on the autism spectrum but he rejected the…