Langan & Langan

[2013] FCCA 258

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LANGAN & LANGAN [2013] FCCA 258

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW: Objection to subpoena – principles applicable – documents sought held to be an exercise in “trawling.”

Legislation:
Federal Circuit Court Rules2001, Division 15.3

Cases cited:
Australian Gaslight Company v the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2003) FCR 317; (2003) ATPR ¶41-966
Behrooz v the Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, (2004) 219 CLR 486
Hatton v the Attorney-General (2000) 26 Fam LR 570
National Employers’ Mutual General Insurance Association v Waind & Hill (1978) 1 NSWLR 37 (affirmed (1979) 141 CLR 648)

Applicant: MR LANGAN

Respondent: MS LANGAN

File Number: CAC 700 of 2012

Judgment of: Judge Neville

Hearing date: By written submissions

Date of Last Submission: 8 March 2013

Delivered at: Canberra

Delivered on: 5 April 2013

REPRESENTATION

Solicitor/Advocate for the Applicant: Ms J Curtis

Solicitors for the Applicant: Dobinson Davey Clifford Simpson

Counsel for the Respondent:

Solicitors for the Respondent: Self-represented

Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms J Lloyd of J. Lloyd & Associates

ORDERS

1. The Independent Children’s Lawyer, Ms Lloyd, be granted leave to issue a further Subpoena to the [omitted] in which the Schedule of documents to be produced is specified as follows:

   (a)The records and documents held in relation to Ms Langan in respect of uncontentious material over which no objection to access is made for:

   (i)Ms Langan’s leave as from 1^st January 2012 to present,

   (ii)Personnel, leave, investigation files, injury management files, freedom of information files, as have been provided to the Respondent or received from the Respondent.

2. The Independent Children’s Lawyer issue a subpoena to the Applicant’s employer in the same terms as those outlined in Order 1.

3. In respect of any material produced under subpoenæ pursuant to Order 1 and 2 that the parties be granted leave to inspect only and not to photocopy.

4. The Independent Children’s Lawyer should be treated as exempt from any fees associated with the issuing of any subpoenæ in these proceedings.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT CANBERRA

CAC 700 of 2012

MR LANGAN

Applicant

And

MS LANGAN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from Transcript)

Introduction

1. In this parenting matter, there is an objection to a subpoena; the subpoena in question was filed on 30 January 2013 on behalf of the Father.  It is directed to the Mother’s place of employment (from which she is currently on leave with no definite date of return).  It is in very wide terms both as to the range of documents sought and the period covered by them – July 2005 until February 2013.

2. The Mother, who is now self-represented, objects to any documents produced under the subpoena being inspected or copied.  The objection is based on the grounds of ‘relevance, the utility or advantage to any contested issue or factual matter, and improper…