Kroll and Kroll

In the Family Court of Australia, the applicant husband, Mr Kroll, and the respondent wife, Ms Kroll, were involved in proceedings concerning property settlement. The wife had issued subpoenas to Mr Z, acting as attorney for the husband's father, Mr Kroll Snr, and to the Proper Officer of D Pty Ltd, the husband's employer. The husband's father, who lacked testamentary capacity, was alleged to have loaned the husband $400,000. D Pty Ltd was the husband's employer, and the nature of his partnership status (salary versus equity) was in dispute.

The court was required to determine the relevance and appropriateness of the documents sought by the wife's subpoenas. Specifically, the court had to consider whether documents relating to the husband's father's financial affairs and potential inheritance were relevant to the property settlement proceedings, and whether the wife was entitled to access the husband's employment contract, personnel file, and information regarding his remuneration and equity status with his employer. The court also had to consider objections raised by D Pty Ltd regarding the production of its shareholders' agreement and the husband's personnel file.

Justice Stevenson applied the principles from *White & Tulloch v White*, which established that while the primary focus of property proceedings is on the parties' own circumstances, documents relating to a third party's financial affairs or testamentary intentions may be relevant if they are not too remote and would be shutting one's eyes to reality to ignore them. The court found that given the husband's father's lack of testamentary capacity and the significant alleged loan, documents relating to his estate and the potential inheritance were relevant. The court also determined that the wife was entitled to investigate the full extent of benefits the husband received from his employment, including access to his personnel file, to clarify his remuneration and bonus structure.

The court ordered that the wife's subpoena to the Proper Officer of D Pty Ltd, in relation to the shareholders agreement, be set aside. This was on the condition that the husband use his best endeavours to obtain affidavit evidence from the directors of D Pty Ltd verifying that he is a salary partner and not an equity partner. The court otherwise allowed the wife access to the documents sought from D Pty Ltd and Mr Z, subject to the voluntary production of the father's will.