HASTINGS & MARCH

In the Family Court of Australia, Judge Neville considered an objection to a subpoena filed by Ms B. The dispute concerned the relevance of documents sought by subpoena in family law proceedings, particularly in the context of ongoing assessments of the children involved and the protection of therapeutic relationships.

The court was required to determine whether the subpoena amounted to an impermissible "fishing expedition" and whether a lack of apparent relevance was, in itself, a sufficient ground to set aside the subpoena. The court also considered the existing reports before it and the importance of preserving the therapeutic relationship between an older child and their counsellor.

Judge Neville upheld the objection, finding that the present state of authority permits setting aside a subpoena based on a lack of apparent relevance. The court noted that two reports had already been provided, including a comprehensive "Wishes Report" that contained the children's views and comments from other siblings. The judge considered these existing reports to be sufficient and highlighted the importance of protecting the therapeutic relationship, particularly given the children's long history of assessments and the potential for the subpoena to be oppressive.

The orders made were that the subpoena objection of Ms B be upheld and that, absent any opposing application within 14 days, each party was to bear their own costs.