FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| LAMBARD & LAMBARD AND ORS (NO. 3) | [2020] FamCA 879 |
| FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SUBPOENA – Where the father has made an Application for leave to be granted retrospectively for the issue of subpoenas – Where, at the time of the decision, documents had already been produced to the Court in respect of three (3) of the four (4) subpoenas – Where a letter was provided to the Court in respect of the fourth subpoena that there were no documents to produce – Where the parties consent in respect to inspection of two (2) of the subpoenas - Where the pressing issue before the Court concerns a subpoena issued to the maternal grandmothers former employer – Where the mother and maternal grandmother seek disclosure of financial documents of the paternal grandmother – Where the mother and maternal grandmother seek leave to issue a subpoena to the paternal grandfather, a third party to the proceedings – Orders made for leave to be granted retrospectively in respect of the three (3) subpoenas – Orders made for the paternal grandmother to provide financial documents – Orders made granting leave to issue a subpoena to the paternal grandfather. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(3)(f), 69ZQ(1)(d) Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) pt 15.3, r 13.01 |
| Attorney-General for the State of Victoria v Slaveski [2013] VSC 319 Chandrasekaran v Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists [2019] FCA 1687 Hatton v Attorney-General of Commonwealth of Australia and Ors (2000) FLC 93-038 R v Barton (1981) 2 NSWLR 414 U v U (2002) 211 CLR 238 Wong v Sklavos (2014) 319 ALR 378 |
| APPLICANT: | Mr Lambard |
| FIRST RESPONDENT: | Ms Lambard |
| SECOND RESPONDENT: | Ms Dabell |
| THIRD RESPONDENT: | Ms M Lambard |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 2664 | of | 2020 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 20 October 2020 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney by web conference |
| JUDGMENT OF: | McClelland DCJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 24 September 2020 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Ms Christie SC |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Linden Legal |
| COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT: | Ms Cantrell |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT: | McAuley Hawach Lawyers |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT: | Mr Ridley of Matthews Folbigg Pty Ltd |
| COUNSEL FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT: | Mr Harper |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT: | Mitchell Lawyers |
Orders
That leave be granted retrospectively, or to the extent that it is necessary, to the father, Mr Lambard, to issue the following subpoenas (NOTING that the said subpoenas were filed with the Court on 3 September 2020):
(a)SS Pty Limited;
(b)TT Pty Limited.
That leave be granted to the legal representatives for each party to inspect and copy any documents produced to the Court in response to the subpoenas filed with the Court on 3 September 2020 by the father to SS Pty Limited and TT Pty Limited, provided copies of the documents are not released to the parties.
That leave be granted retrospectively, or to the extent that it is necessary, to the father to issue the subpoena to UU Company (NOTING that…
Continue reading Lambard and Lambard & Ors (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lambard and Lambard & Ors (No 3) [2020] FamCA 879
- Case
- [2020] FamCA 879
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether to grant leave for the issuance of these subpoenas, considering the timing of their filing and the nature of the information sought. The court also had to consider the terms upon which documents produced in response to these subpoenas would be made available for inspection by the parties and their legal representatives. Furthermore, the court needed to address the provision of financial information by the third respondent.
McClelland DCJ granted leave retrospectively, or to the extent necessary, for the father to issue subpoenas to SS Pty Limited, TT Pty Limited, and UU Company. The court also granted leave for the mother to issue a subpoena to Mr O Lambard, seeking information as detailed in a specific unsealed subpoena. Provisions were made for the inspection and copying of documents produced in response to the subpoenas, with specific rights of first inspection granted to the mother and maternal grandmother for documents from UU Company. The third respondent, Ms M Lambard, was ordered to provide detailed financial documentation within 21 days. A subpoena filed by the father to the National Disability Insurance Agency was noted as not being pressed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That leave be granted retrospectively, or to the extent that it is necessary, to the father, Mr Lambard, to issue the following subpoenas (NOTING that the said subpoenas were filed with the Court on 3 September 2020):
(a) SS Pty Limited;
(b) TT Pty Limited.
2.
That leave be granted to the legal representatives for each party to inspect and copy any documents produced to the Court in response to the subpoenas filed with the Court on 3 September 2020 by the father to SS Pty Limited and TT Pty Limited, provided copies of the documents are not released to the parties.
3.
That leave be granted retrospectively, or to the extent that it is necessary, to the father to issue the subpoena to UU Company (NOTING that the said subpoenas were filed with the Court on 3 September 2020).
4.
That, subject to the legal representatives for the mother and maternal grandmother, for a period of 14 days from the date of these orders, having first right of inspection, leave is granted to all parties’ lawyers to inspect and copy any documents produced to the Court in response to the subpoena to UU Company.
5.
Within 21 days, the third respondent Ms M Lambard shall provide to the mother copies of:
(a) Her most recent income tax return and notice of assessment; and
(b) A copy of the most recent financial statements prepared for any company or trust in which she is a shareholder, unitholder or beneficiary.
(c) A copy of the most recent income tax return lodged with the ATO by or behalf of any company or trust in which she is a shareholder, unitholder or beneficiary.
(d) The most recent statement for any superannuation account or interest held by her, including any self-managed superannuation fund.
6.
That leave be granted to the mother, Ms Lambard, to issue a subpoena to Mr O Lambard seeking the information set out in the unsealed subpoena sent by the solicitors for the mother to the solicitors for the father and paternal grandmother attached to the email dated 4 September 2020.
NOTATION
A. IT IS NOTED THAT the subpoena filed 3 September 2020 to National Disability Insurance Agency by the father is not pressed or called upon.
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.