Haseeb & Haseeb

Case [2022] FedCFamC1F 520

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia

(DIVISION 1)

Haseeb & Haseeb [2022] FedCFamC1F 520

File number(s): PAC 1927 of 2017
Judgment of: RIETHMULLER J
Date of judgment: 22 July 2022
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – DISCOVERY – Documents no longer in possession of party – Documents provided to Social Security and Tax Office – Injunctions requiring party to seek information from Social Security and Commission of Taxation, including Freedom of Information request – Mandatory injunctions ordered.
Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 114

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 9

Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)

Social Security (Administration Act) 1999 (Cth) ss 204, 207

Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) Sch 1

Tax Laws Amendment (Confidentiality of Taxpayer Information) Bill 2010
Cases cited:

Alister v R [1984] 154 CLR 404; [1984] HCA 85

El Helou v Smith [2009] NSWSC 741

Federal Commissioner of Taxation & Tamarama Fresh Juices Australia Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 154

Mitty & Mitty [2008] FamCA 973

Newport & Newport [2017] FamCA 117

Perish & R [2015] NSWCCA 237

Stopford-Molloy & Molloy [2022] FedCFamC1F 118

Tahana & Hines [2021] NSWSC 564

Wray & Wray [2007] NSWSC 164
Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 36
Date of hearing: 8 July 2022
Place: Parramatta
Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Singh
The First Respondent: Appearance excused
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: McHardy Law
Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr M.J. Heath and Mr R.D. Turnbull
Independent Children’s Lawyer Appearance excused
Table of Corrections
28 July 2022 In paragraph 9, the second sentence which read, “She says that she is unaware of the second respondent being in paid employment at any time since 2002, when he arrived in Australia”, has been amended to, “The wife says that she is unaware of the second respondent being in paid employment at any time since she arrived in Australia in 2003”.

ORDERS

PAC 1927 of 2017

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:

MS HASEEB

Applicant
AND:

MR HASEEB

First Respondent

MR B HASEEB

Second Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

order made by:

RIETHMULLER J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 July 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.That within 14 days of the date of these Orders, the second respondent sign and provide to the applicant’s solicitors the completed Centrelink form “Authority to release personal information personal injury, insurance, superannuation or other matter (Si039)” for release to the applicant’s solicitors copies of all applications he has made for any Centrelink benefits for the period 1 January 1993 to the present together with copies of any supporting documentation submitted with those applications.

2.That within 14 days of the date of these Orders, the second respondent sign and provide to the applicant’s solicitors the completed Australian Taxation Office “Freedom of Information (FOI) request” form for release to the applicant’s solicitors copies of all taxation returns and Notice of Assessments for the Second Respondent for the period 1 January 1993 to the present.

3.That the applicant meet…

Continue reading Haseeb & Haseeb

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Haseeb & Haseeb [2022] FedCFamC1F 520
Case
[2022] FedCFamC1F 520
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Haseeb applied for orders under section 117 of the Family Law Act 1975 for the disclosure of documents from Mr Haseeb (the husband) and Mr B Haseeb (the second respondent). The second respondent had allegedly loaned the husband money to purchase three properties, and the second respondent claimed an equitable interest in those properties. The wife was not aware of these loans and claimed that the husband had access to large sums of cash from his business. The wife sought disclosure of documents from the second respondent, including tax returns and Centrelink applications. The second respondent did not have the documents in his possession but had provided them to the Social Security Agency and the Australian Taxation Office. The court was required to decide whether to order the second respondent to obtain the documents from those agencies and provide them to the wife. The court found that the second respondent did not have the documents and had provided them to the agencies. The court ordered the second respondent to seek the documents from those agencies and provide them to the wife. The wife was to bear the costs of obtaining the documents. The court reserved the costs of the application to the trial judge.

The court found that the second respondent had provided the documents to the agencies and did not have them in his possession. The court ordered the second respondent to seek the documents from the agencies and provide them to the wife. The court found that the wife was entitled to the documents to assess the second respondent’s claims and the husband’s financial situation. The court ordered the second respondent to complete the necessary forms to obtain the documents and provide them to the wife within 14 days. The court reserved the costs of the application to the trial judge. The court ordered the wife to bear the costs of obtaining the documents from the agencies.

Orders

Orders of the court

PAC 1927 of 2017

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS HASEEB

Applicant

AND:

MR HASEEB

First Respondent

MR B HASEEB

Second Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

order made by:

RIETHMULLER J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 July 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. That within 14 days of the date of these Orders, the second respondent sign and provide to the applicant’s solicitors the completed Centrelink form “Authority to release personal information personal injury, insurance, superannuation or other matter (Si039)” for release to the applicant’s solicitors copies of all applications he has made for any Centrelink benefits for the period 1 January 1993 to the present together with copies of any supporting documentation submitted with those applications.

2. That within 14 days of the date of these Orders, the second respondent sign and provide to the applicant’s solicitors the completed Australian Taxation Office “Freedom of Information (FOI) request” form for release to the applicant’s solicitors copies of all taxation returns and Notice of Assessments for the Second Respondent for the period 1 January 1993 to the present.

3. That the applicant meet the fees associated with the Centrelink form “Authority to release personal information personal injury, insurance, superannuation or other matter (Si039)” and the Australian Taxation Office “Freedom of Information (FOI) request” at first instance, and the question with respect to those costs otherwise be reserved to the trial judge.

4. The costs of the applicant’s Application in a Proceeding filed 21 June 2022 be reserved to the trial judge.

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 Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

The other orders sought by the wife in the Amended Initiating Application filed 9 September 2021, relating to the substantive property proceedings between the parties, were not discussed at the hearing of the wife’s present Application in a Proceeding filed 21 June 2022. Given that the present application was relevant only to disclosure of material by the second respondent, both the husband and the Independent Children’s Lawyer did not seek to be heard on the matter and their appearances were excused.Background The second respondent alleges that in 1992 he provided $40,000 to the husband to enable him to purchase a property located at C Street, Suburb D NSW (“the Suburb D property”), with a large mortgage. This property was registered in the sole name of the husband. The husband continued to pay the mortgage payments, which the second respondent characterised as board. The second respondent claims that he is beneficially entitled to the Suburb D property. The second respondent says that it was purchased in the husband’s name because he believed he was unable to purchase property in Australia at that time, as the second respondent was then a citizen of Country Q. The second respondent also alleges that in 2004 he lent the husband $1 million to enable the husband to purchase a property located at 2E Road, Suburb F NSW (“the Suburb F property”), which is registered in the husband’s sole name. Thirdly, the second respondent alleges that in 2010 he lent the husband $266,000 to assist with the purchase of a property located at R Street, Suburb P NSW (“the Suburb P property”), which is also registered in the husband’s sole name. The second respondent has obtained judgments against the husband in the State courts of New South Wales. Judgment was made by the Supreme Court on 8 February 2016, with respect to the alleged loan of $1 million for the Suburb F property, entered in the sum of $2,604,400.95 inclusive of costs. Judgment was made by the District Court of NSW on 13 July 2021, with respect to the alleged loan of $266,000 for the Suburb P property, entered in the sum of $708,987.19 inclusive of costs. The husband did not contest the state court proceedings and concedes these debts.The wife’s position The wife says that she was never made aware of the alleged loans or alleged equitable interest of the second respondent. The wife says that she is unaware of the second respondent being in paid employment at any time since she arrived in Australia in 2003. She also alleges that the husband would retain large sums in cash from operating his retail business, having counted money that was contained in a blue bag in the home on occasions between 2012 and 2014. The wife says that on the last occasion she was counting cash from the husband’s business in the home, she recalls having counted close to $200,000 present. The wife also alleges that the husband told her that he provided funds to his parents because the money that they received from the government is not enough. The wife says that the husband also said to her during the marriage that he is respected by relatives because he gave up his own dreams to provide for his parents, and brothers and sisters.

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.