Grimmond & Hartin (No 3)

Case [2022] FedCFamC1F 917


Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia

(DIVISION 1)

Grimmond & Hartin (No 3) [2022] FedCFamC1F 917

File number(s): DNC 234 of 2021
Judgment of: BERMAN J
Date of judgment: 11 November 2022
Catchwords:  FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Subpoena – Where the applicant issued various subpoenas in relation to the second respondent’s business – Where the subpoenas were the subject of objection by the second respondent – Where the applicant conceded that there was merit in the objection and sought leave to amend the schedule to limit the scope – Where the test of relevance is satisfied – Where no evidence is provided by the second respondent to support his contention that the subpoena catches 106,225 pages and will cost $165,000 to comply – Orders made.
Cases cited:

Hatten v Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Australia & Ors (2000) FLC 93- 038

Lucas Industries Ltd v Hewitt & Ors (1978) 18 ALR 555

Martin & Martin & Anor (No 2) [2014] FamCA 232

Woley and Humboldt (No 4) [2009] FamCA 546

Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 31
Date of hearing: 11 November 2022
Place: Adelaide via MS Teams
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Giacomo
Solicitor for the Applicant: Darwin Family Law
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Berghofer
Solicitor for the Respondent: Cozens Johansen Lawyers
Counsel for the Objector: Mr Cavanagh
Solicitor for the Objector: Withnalls Lawyers

ORDERS

DNC 234 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS GRIMMOND

Applicant

AND:

MR HARTIN

Respondent

order made by:

BERMAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 NOVEMBER 2022

THE COURT ORDERS:

1.That the Applicant be granted leave to amend the Schedule of the subpoena to B Pty Ltd filed 4 October 2022, to read as follows:

1.A copy of this subpoena.

2.Any quotations prepared by B Pty Ltd with respect to any work undertaken for the following:

2.1Q Pty Ltd;

2.2R Trust;

2.3S Pty Ltd;

2.4T Pty Ltd;

2.5U Pty Ltd;

2.6V Pty Ltd;

2.7       W Pty Ltd;

2.8X Pty Ltd;

2.9Y Pty Ltd;

2.10Mr Z;

2.11Mr AA;

2.12Mr BB;

2.13Mr DD;

2.14Mr CC;

2.15Mr EE;

2.16Mr FF;

2.17Mr GG; and

2.18Mr HH.

3.Any contracts entered into by B Pty Ltd, including purchase orders and/or accepted quotations for supply of services to the following:

3.1Q Pty Ltd;

3.2R Trust;

3.3S Pty Ltd;

3.4T Pty Ltd;

3.5U Pty Ltd;

3.6V Pty Ltd;

3.7W Pty Ltd;

3.8X Pty Ltd;

3.9Y Pty Ltd;

3.10Mr Z;

3.11Mr AA;

3.12Mr BB;

3.13Mr DD;

3.14Mr CC;

3.15Mr EE;

3.16Mr FF;

3.17Mr GG; and

3.18Mr HH.

2.That the Notice of Objection filed 19 October 2022, is dismissed.

3.That the time for compliance by B Pty Ltd is extended to 9.00 am on 21 November 2022. 

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family…

Continue reading Grimmond & Hartin (No 3)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Grimmond & Hartin (No 3) [2022] FedCFamC1F 917
Case
[2022] FedCFamC1F 917
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) considered the dispute between Ms Grimmond and Mr Hartin in the case of Grimmond & Hartin (No 3). The case revolves around the issuance of subpoenas by Ms Grimmond in relation to Mr Hartin's business, which were objected to by Mr Hartin. Ms Grimmond sought leave to amend the subpoena to limit its scope. The legal issues before the court involved determining the relevance of the documents sought and whether the subpoena amounted to an abuse of process or a fishing expedition. The court found that the test of relevance was satisfied, and Mr Hartin failed to provide evidence to support his contention regarding the volume and cost of complying with the subpoena. As a result, the court granted Ms Grimmond leave to amend the subpoena schedule to limit the scope of the documents sought.

Berman J addressed the legal principles governing the issuance of subpoenas, emphasizing the importance of relevance and the proper administration of justice. The court referenced several precedents to establish that the relevance of documents should not be limited to those directly admissible in court but could include any documents that may throw light on the issues in the case. The court found that Ms Grimmond's assertion that Mr Hartin and her son had set up a competing business was supported by the business plan of the competing company. The court dismissed the objections to the subpoenas, holding that the subpoenas were relevant to the issues before the court and did not amount to an abuse of process or a fishing expedition. The court also noted that the cost of compliance could be addressed once the documents were produced.

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.