Jacovit & Gruv - [2024] FedCFamC2F 1042

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Jacovit & Gruv [2024] FedCFamC2F 1042

File number: MLC 13270 of 2007

Judgment of: JUDGE BLAKE

Date of judgment: 9 May 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Review of decision of Registrar – where applicant was a child and subject to proceedings in this court – where applicant is now an adult and wants access to the Court file relating to her parents dispute – where the applicant has a proper interest – where there exists other reasons supporting disclosure – application granted for applicant to access the Court file.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 114Q, Pt XIVB.

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules2021 (Cth) r 15.13, Pt 6B, Pt 14.3.

Cases cited: Paradoxos & Paradoxos [2010] FamCA 653

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 19

Date of hearing: 9 May 2024

Place: Melbourne

Advocate for the Applicant: In person

Advocate for the First Respondent: In person via Microsoft Teams

Advocate for the Second Respondent: No appearance
ORDERS

MLC 13270 of 2007

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS JACOVIT

Applicant

AND:
MR GRUV

First Respondent

MS GRUV

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE BLAKE

DATE OF ORDER:

9 MAY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Formal service upon MR B born in 2002 of the Applicant’s Application for Review filed on 30 April 2024 be dispensed with.
2.Leave be granted to the Applicant to search and inspect the Court file in matter Jacovit & Gruv MLC13270 of 2007 (‘Court file’).
3.The Applicant must not disclose the contents of the Court file to anyone other than the parties (her mother or her father) to the proceeding.

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.The Second Respondent was present in the courtroom during the Hearing on 9 May 2024, and the First Respondent appeared via Microsoft Teams.
B.Both the First and Second Respondent ~~had no objection~~ consented to the making of Order 2 of these Orders.
C.These Orders have been amended pursuant to rule 10.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

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).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jacovit & Gruv and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] FedCFamC2F 1042
Decision Date: 9 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by Ms Jacovit for review of a decision of the Registrar, seeking access to the Court file in the proceedings between her parents, originally filed in 2007. Ms Jacovit, who was a child at the time of the original proceedings, now an adult, sought to inspect the Court file to address her own personal and legal matters. The respondents, Mr Gruv and Ms Gruv, her parents, did not object to the application.

The legal issues before the court were whether Ms Jacovit had a proper interest in accessing the Court file and whether there were any other reasons that supported the disclosure of the file. The court needed to determine if the applicant's interest in the proceedings and her personal circumstances justified granting access to the Court file, given the sensitive nature of family law proceedings and the potential implications for privacy and confidentiality.

In its judgment, the court found that Ms Jacovit had a proper interest in the Court file as she was a direct party to the original proceedings and now an adult. The court also considered that there were other reasons supporting the disclosure, such as her need to address personal and legal issues stemming from the family dispute. The court acknowledged the sensitive nature of the information but balanced this against Ms Jacovit's legitimate need for access. Consequently, the court granted Ms Jacovit's application, allowing her to inspect the Court file, while imposing a strict non-disclosure condition to protect the privacy of the parties involved.

The court ordered that formal service of the application upon Mr B, born in 2002, be dispensed with. It granted leave to Ms Jacovit to search and inspect the Court file, subject to the condition that she must not disclose its contents to anyone other than the parties involved in the original proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

MLC 13270 of 2007

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS JACOVIT

Applicant

AND:

MR GRUV

First Respondent

MS GRUV

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE BLAKE

DATE OF ORDER:

9 MAY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Formal service upon MR B born in 2002 of the Applicant’s Application for Review filed on 30 April 2024 be dispensed with.

2. Leave be granted to the Applicant to search and inspect the Court file in matter Jacovit & Gruv MLC13270 of 2007 (‘Court file’).

3. The Applicant must not disclose the contents of the Court file to anyone other than the parties (her mother or her father) to the proceeding.

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:

A. The Second Respondent was present in the courtroom during the Hearing on 9 May 2024, and the First Respondent appeared via Microsoft Teams.

B. Both the First and Second Respondent had no objection consented to the making of Order 2 of these Orders.

C. These Orders have been amended pursuant to rule 10.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

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).

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

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.

File number:	MLC 13270 of 2007
Judgment of:	JUDGE BLAKE
Date of judgment:	9 May 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – Review of decision of Registrar – where applicant was a child and subject to proceedings in this court – where applicant is now an adult and wants access to the Court file relating to her parents dispute – where the applicant has a proper interest – where there exists other reasons supporting disclosure – application granted for applicant to access the Court file.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 114Q, Pt XIVB. Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules2021 (Cth) r 15.13, Pt 6B, Pt 14.3.
Cases cited:	Paradoxos & Paradoxos [2010] FamCA 653
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	19
Date of hearing:	9 May 2024
Place:	Melbourne
Advocate for the Applicant:	In person
Advocate for the First Respondent:	In person via Microsoft Teams
Advocate for the Second Respondent:	No appearance

MLC 13270 of 2007
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MS JACOVIT Applicant
AND:	MR GRUV First Respondent MS GRUV Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE BLAKE
DATE OF ORDER:	9 MAY 2024