Jeeves & Jeeves (No 2) - [2008] FamCA 1148

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JEEVES & JEEVES (NO. 2)

[2008] FamCA 1148

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Alleged theft and retention of documents by one party

Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Burridge (1980) FLC 90-902
English v English (1986) FLC 91-729
F and F (1989) FLC 92-031
Farr v Farr (1976) FLC 90-133

APPLICANT:

Mr Jeeves

RESPONDENT:

Ms Jeeves

FILE NUMBER:

MLF

10167

2000

DATE DELIVERED:

12 November 2008

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Cronin J

HEARING DATE:

12 November 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr P.D. Sweeney

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

JA MIDDLEMIS

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms C.E. Molyneux QC,

with Ms B.A. Tulloch

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

TAUSSIG & CHERRIE

Orders

That the wife forthwith return to the husband or his appointed agent, all documents removed from G Business on 17 October 2008.
That the application of the husband seeking interim orders filed 5 November 2008 be otherwise dismissed.
That my reasons for judgment this day be urgently transcribed and be made available to the parties.
That my Associate forthwith email to the solicitors and counsel for the parties who have provided their electronic addresses a copy of these orders.
That the question of any application for costs arising out of these orders be determined upon written submissions. If any such application is to be made, it be filed electronically with my Associate and served upon the other party by 4 pm on 20 November 2008 and the recipient of any such application have until 4 pm on 27 November 2008 to reply by the same electronic means.
That subject to any issue of uncertainty as to matters set forth in such submissions, the determination and outcome of such applications for costs be made in chambers.
It is certified that it was reasonable in the circumstances to brief counsel including senior counsel.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Jeeves & Jeeves is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLF 10167 of 2000

MR JEEVES

Applicant

And

MS JEEVES

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I have an application before me brought on urgently by the husband. I heard argument this morning and have given some thought to what should be done. I propose to make orders in similar terms to those sought by the husband. I say "similar" because I do not want any misunderstanding about these orders. It has also been suggested that my orders or statements might have some impact upon decisions to be made by the Victorian Police in respect of their criminal investigations. I hope that is not so. The relevant police officers will do their duty according to law.
I am familiar with this case because under the Court's management of cases, wherever possible, a case should remain with the one judge, if not to finality, at least during the interlocutory…

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 Jeeves & Jeeves (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Jeeves & Jeeves (No 2) [2008] FamCA 1148
Case: [2008] FamCA 1148
Decision Date: 12 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Jeeves & Jeeves (No 2)*, Cronin J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the husband for interim orders concerning documents removed by the wife from "G Business". The dispute centred on the wife's retention of these documents.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the wife should be ordered to return the documents she had removed from G Business on 17 October 2008. The court also had to consider the husband's broader application for interim orders filed on 5 November 2008.

Cronin J ordered the wife to forthwith return all documents removed from G Business on 17 October 2008 to the husband or his appointed agent. The husband's application for interim orders filed on 5 November 2008 was otherwise dismissed. The court also made directions regarding the transcription and distribution of its reasons for judgment, the determination of costs applications through written submissions, and certified that it was reasonable to brief counsel, including senior counsel, in the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the wife forthwith return to the husband or his appointed agent, all documents removed from G Business on 17 October 2008.

That the application of the husband seeking interim orders filed 5 November 2008 be otherwise dismissed.

That my reasons for judgment this day be urgently transcribed and be made available to the parties.

That my Associate forthwith email to the solicitors and counsel for the parties who have provided their electronic addresses a copy of these orders.

That the question of any application for costs arising out of these orders be determined upon written submissions. If any such application is to be made, it be filed electronically with my Associate and served upon the other party by 4 pm on 20 November 2008 and the recipient of any such application have until 4 pm on 27 November 2008 to reply by the same electronic means.

That subject to any issue of uncertainty as to matters set forth in such submissions, the determination and outcome of such applications for costs be made in chambers.

It is certified that it was reasonable in the circumstances to brief counsel including senior counsel.

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.