Herouz and Herouz - [2020] FamCA 478

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HEROUZ & HEROUZ

[2020] FamCA 478

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SUBPOENA – Review of Registrar’s decision to strike out two (2) subpoenas issued by the wife to the husband’s former employers and granting the husband the first right of inspection in relation to a third subpoena filed by the wife to the husband’s treating psychologist – Where the wife contends the subpoenas are appropriate and relevant – Where the wife contends that the Registrar granting the husband the first right of inspection of the third subpoena is inappropriate and unnecessary – Where the husband contends that the subpoenas serve no purpose and are a ‘fishing expedition’ – Orders made upholding the decision of the Registrar and dismissing the wife’s Application for a Review.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 37A.
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 15.31(3), 18.10(1).

A & The A Group (2006) FLC 93-271

Alister v R (1984) 154 CLR 404

Andrew Garrett Wine Resorts v National Australia Bank Ltd (No. 6) (2005) 92 SASR 419
Baumann and Ors & Rushbrooke and Anor [2016] FamCA 905
Feiteiro & Feiteiro [2019] FamCA 647
Hatton v Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Australia & Ors (2000) FLC 93-038
Henley & Henley (2019) FamCA 101

Killorgan Investments Pty Ltd v Baycorp Advantage Business Services Limited and Ors [2002] VSC 270

Macks v Tuck & Ors & QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd (No.4) [2007] SASC 255

Martin & Martin and Anor (No. 2) [2014] FamCA 232
McMillan Incorporated v Bishopgate Investment Trust (1993) 4 All ER 998
Mulley v Manifold (1959) 103 CLR 341
National Employers Mutual General Association Limited v Waind & Hill [1978] 1 NSWLR 372
R v Ridgeway (1998) 72 SASR 73

Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR(NSW) 564 at 574-5
Ryder & Lee [2009] FamCA 531

T & D [2006] FamCA 1560

Unitingcare – Unifam Counselling & Mediation & Harkiss and Anor (2011) FLC 93-476

APPLICANT:

Ms Herouz

RESPONDENT:

Mr Herouz

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

4915

2017

DATE DELIVERED:

15 June 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

McClelland DCJ

HEARING DATE:

by way of written submissions

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

P. Cummings SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mills Oakley Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

J. Lloyd SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Millennium Lawyers

Orders

The Application in a Case filed by the wife on 29 May 2020 seeking a review of Orders made by Registrar McNamara made on 28 May 2020 is dismissed.

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

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Herouz & Herouz has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Herouz and Herouz

Details

AGLC: Herouz and Herouz [2020] FamCA 478
Case: [2020] FamCA 478
Decision Date: 15 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Herouz and Herouz*, the wife sought a review of orders made by Registrar McNamara on 28 May 2020. The application for review was filed by the wife on 29 May 2020. The matter came before McClelland DCJ.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the wife's application for review of the Registrar's orders should be dismissed.

McClelland DCJ dismissed the wife's application. The reasons for this dismissal are not detailed in the provided text, but the outcome was that the application for review was unsuccessful.

The court ordered that the wife's application in a case filed on 29 May 2020 seeking a review of orders made by Registrar McNamara on 28 May 2020 be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application in a Case filed by the wife on 29 May 2020 seeking a review of Orders made by Registrar McNamara made on 28 May 2020 is dismissed.

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

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.