KONCZ & KONCZ - [2013] FamCA 444

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KONCZ & KONCZ

[2013] FamCA 444

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the husband sought an order that the wife be ordered to cease to instruct her present solicitors due to a law clerk to whom the husband had provided instructions when the clerk was working with his previous solicitors then commenced to work as a solicitor in the firm instructed by the wife - Where the former law clerk, now a solicitor, subsequently left the employ of the firm instructed by the wife – Discussion of relevant legal principles and relevant authorities – Where the test is not based upon actual prejudice or actual disclosure but rather potential or inadvertent disclosure – Where the evidence establishes that no disclosure of confidential information has taken place and that there is no real risk of inadvertent disclosure in the future thus there is no basis for enjoining the wife’s solicitors from continuing to act in this matter – Where the husband’s application is dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

McMillan v McMillan [2000] Fam CA 1046

Stewart (Lindenmayer J,17 April 1997, unreported)

Thevenaz & Thevenaz (1986) FLC 91-748

APPLICANT:

Mr Koncz

RESPONDENT:

Ms Koncz

FILE NUMBER:

WOC

376

2012

DATE DELIVERED:

14 June 2013

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Aldridge J

HEARING DATE:

31 May 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Greenaway

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Dom Velcic & Co Pty Ltd Solicitors & Barristers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Lethbridge SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Rebecca Bailey & Associates

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT

CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Christaki, Legal Aid NSW

Orders

That the husband’s Application in a Case filed 20 May 2013 is hereby dismissed.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: WOC 376 of 2012

Mr Koncz

Applicant

And

Ms Koncz

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

Mr Koncz (“the husband”) seeks an order that Ms Koncz (“the wife”) be ordered to cease to instruct her present solicitors. This is because, it is said, that a law clerk to whom he provided instructions when the clerk was working with his previous solicitors then left that firm and commenced to work as a solicitor in the firm instructed by the wife.

Background

In June 2012 the husband retained B Law Firm, to act on his behalf in these proceedings. On 23 January 2013 B Law Firm filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act.
In June 2012 the Husband met Ms C, then a law clerk employed by B Law Firm. He says that in July 2012 he occasionally spoke with Ms C by telephone to provide her with instructions in relation to an application and an interim hearing in these proceedings in July 2012.
Between 12 September 2012 and 8…

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 KONCZ & KONCZ

Details

AGLC: KONCZ & KONCZ [2013] FamCA 444
Case: [2013] FamCA 444
Decision Date: 14 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Koncz & Koncz*, Aldridge J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application filed by the husband on 20 May 2013. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it is clear that the husband initiated proceedings seeking specific relief.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant the relief sought by the husband in his application. The court was required to assess the merits of the husband's application and determine whether it should be upheld or dismissed.

Aldridge J dismissed the husband's application. The reasoning behind this decision is not elaborated upon in the provided extract, but the outcome indicates that the court found no grounds to grant the relief requested by the husband. Consequently, the husband's application was unsuccessful.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the husband’s Application in a Case filed 20 May 2013 is hereby dismissed.

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.