FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Merovic & Groff [2025] FedCFamC1F 427
File number(s): SYC 8594 of 2022 Judgment of: CHRISTIE J Date of ex tempore judgment: 19 June 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – INTERIM ORDERS – Where applicant seeks a blanket release from Hearne v Street obligations – Where there is consensual agreement that certain documents may be released from these obligations – Ordered by consent that the applicant, first respondent and second respondent may use and disclose select documents from this Court in another Supreme Court matter – Ordered that parties are to attend a further case management hearing if they cannot agree to consent orders. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 30, 69, 114N, 114Q, 114R
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 6.04, 6.36)
Cases cited: Chakora & Bhander [2023] FedCFamC1F 127
Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125; [2008] HCA 36
Quen v Chen [2025] FedCFamC1A 39
R Pty Ltd (Trustee for Fletcher Trust) & Jones (2016) 56 Fam LR 445; [2016] FamCA 928
Sadek and Ors & Hall and Anor (2015) FLC 93-634; [2015] FamCAFC 23
Springfield Nominees Pty Ltd v Bridgelands Securities Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 217
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 35 Date of hearing: 19 June 2025 Place: Sydney Senior Counsel for the Applicant: Mr G. Richardson Solicitors for the Applicant: Pearson Emerson Family Lawyers King’s Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr G. Dickson Solicitors for the First Respondent: Nedovic Lawyers Counsel for the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents: Mr J. Carney Solicitors for the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents: Kalus Kenny Intelex Solicitor for the Fifth Respondent: Mr B. Giles in the employ of Speed and Stracey Lawyers ORDERS
SYC 8594 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR MEROVIC
Applicant
AND: MS GROFF
First Respondent
TRUSTEE OF THE GROFF GROUP HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Second Respondent
GUARDIAN AND APPOINTOR OF THE GROFF GROUP HOLDINGS TRUSTB PTY LTD (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
CHRISTIE J
DATE OF ORDER:
19 JUNE 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.By consent as between the applicant and all the respondents, Order 2 and 3 of the Orders of 6 May 2025 be varied such that time for compliance is extended to 24 July 2025.
2.By consent as between the applicant and the first respondent, pursuant to ss 30 and 69(1) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), ss 114Q(2)(a), 114Q(2)(b) and/or 114R(2)(b)(i) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (the Act) and r 6.04(1)(b) of the Rules, each of the applicant and the first and second respondents may for the purpose of the summons dated 12 June 2025 in proceeding S ECI … (VSC Proceeding): (1) use; (2) disclose to the Supreme Court of Victoria and the parties to VSC Proceeding (including their legal representatives); or (3) otherwise rely upon the following documents (or…
Continue reading Merovic & Groff
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Merovic & Groff [2025] FedCFamC1F 427
- Case
- [2025] FedCFamC1F 427
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the applicant had not established why the points of claim and defence would be relevant to the disposition of the summons. However, the court recognised that the parties had a significant overlap, which had a significant impact on the legitimate concerns about the provision of sensitive or private information to third parties. The court held that the release was not a release to the world at large, but a release for use in the proceedings and specifically limited to the determination of the summons. The court granted the applicant's request for a release of certain documents, subject to certain conditions and restrictions to protect the privacy of the non-litigants' information. The court also ordered that if the parties could not agree to consent orders, then the balance of the application would be heard by another judge on a specified date.
The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the competing rights of the litigants and non-litigants, and the need to balance those rights in appropriate cases. The court recognised that there was a necessary compromise between the rights of justice of litigants and the rights of a stranger, and that the law had developed various means to protect the privacy of the stranger's information. The court held that the release of certain documents was necessary to dispose of the summons, and that the conditions and restrictions imposed on the release were sufficient to protect the privacy of the non-litigants' information.
The court's decision was a balanced one, which recognised the need to protect the privacy of non-litigants' information while also allowing litigants to have access to the information necessary to dispose of the proceedings. The court's decision also highlighted the importance of consensual agreements between parties in determining the scope of the release of information in family law proceedings. The court's decision was a pragmatic one, which took into account the practicalities of the case and the need to dispose of the proceedings in an efficient and effective manner.
Orders
Orders of the court
SYC 8594 of 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:
MR MEROVIC
Applicant
AND:
MS GROFF
First Respondent
TRUSTEE OF THE GROFF GROUP HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Second Respondent
GUARDIAN AND APPOINTOR OF THE GROFF GROUP HOLDINGS TRUSTB PTY LTD (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
CHRISTIE J
DATE OF ORDER:
19 JUNE 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. By consent as between the applicant and all the respondents, Order 2 and 3 of the Orders of 6 May 2025 be varied such that time for compliance is extended to 24 July 2025.
2. By consent as between the applicant and the first respondent, pursuant to ss 30 and 69(1) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), ss 114Q(2)(a), 114Q(2)(b) and/or 114R(2)(b)(i) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (the Act) and r 6.04(1)(b) of the Rules, each of the applicant and the first and second respondents may for the purpose of the summons dated 12 June 2025 in proceeding S ECI … (VSC Proceeding): (1) use; (2) disclose to the Supreme Court of Victoria and the parties to VSC Proceeding (including their legal representatives); or (3) otherwise rely upon the following documents (or the information within the documents):
(a) all judgments, orders and other documents authored or provided by the Court to the parties in the Proceeding;
(b) transcripts of the Proceeding;
(c) the Initiating Application and any Amended Initiating Application, the Response to Initiating Application and any Amended Response.
(collectively, the Proceedings Documents).
3. For the avoidance of doubt:
(a) a communication of an account of this proceeding or a communication otherwise identifying the names of the parties to this proceeding made in accordance with this order to: (1) the Supreme Court of Victoria in connection with the VSC Proceeding; or (2) the parties to VSC Proceeding (including their legal representatives), is:
(i) in accordance with a direction of this Court under ss 114Q(2)(a) and 114R(2)(b)(i) of the Act; and
(ii) approved by this Court under ss 114Q(2)(b) and 114R(2)(b)(i) of the Act, and will not constitute a contravention of sections 114Q or 114R of the Act.
(b) to the extent necessary to allow use of the Proceeding Documents within the terms of this order, the applicant, the first and second respondents (and their legal representatives) are excused from:
(i) compliance with any non-publication or suppression order made in this Proceeding which otherwise applies to the Proceeding Documents; and
(ii) the implied obligation described in Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125.
4. If the parties cannot agree to consent orders, then the balance of the application is to be heard by the Honourable Justice Campton on 11 July 2025 at 11:00 AM.
5. The applicant is to file an updated minute of order sought and affidavit by 8 July 2025 at 4:00 PM.
6. Any response and affidavit shall be filed by 10 July 2025 at 12 noon.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
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
The Full Court (Thackray, Strickland and Aldridge JJ) in Sadek and Ors & Hall and Anor (2015) FLC 93-634 highlighted the competing right to information between litigants and non-litigants: [5] There is, however, a necessary compromise between the rights of justice of litigants and the rights of a stranger. The law has developed, as best it can, various means to protect the privacy of the stranger’s information. Courts frequently deal with cases involving highly confidential or commercially sensitive material. In appropriate cases, extra steps may be taken. Commonly, these include restricting access to lawyers only or to persons who have signed specific undertakings as to confidentiality and limiting the copying of documents and their removal from the court’s premises. The injunction made by her Honour is an example of the orders that may be made[49] It would be a rare case indeed when documents relevant to issues in proceedings were entirely protected from production because of concerns as to the effect of possible dissemination. As noted earlier, the court is capable of drafting stringent protections for such information. Ultimately, the court must effect a compromise between the rights of litigants and strangers to the litigation, as discussed earlier. This her Honour did.CONSIDERATION In submissions, senior counsel for the applicant described the dispute as somewhat of a “storm in a teacup” because of the commonality of parties and the commonality of issues. Given the jurisprudential foundations for the protections, there is some merit in that submission. It is significant that there is considerable overlap in the parties, as this has a significant impact on the otherwise legitimate concern about provision of sensitive or private information to third parties. The Supreme Court Summons seeks, as part of the relief identified, transfer of those proceedings to this Court. In making that decision, the material before this Court is plainly relevant to disposition of the Summons. The real question is how broad the release need be. King’s Counsel for the first respondent and Senior Counsel for the second to fourth respondents submitted that the applicant has not established why the points of claim and defence would be relevant to the disposition of the Summons. The release is not release to the world at large. It is release for use in the proceedings (and specifically limited to the determination of the Summons). I appreciate the questions of confidentiality loom large because I am told from the bar table (but without demur) that the Victorian Supreme Court proceedings have attracted some media interest. The parties agree that any material which is to be relied upon on the hearing of the Summons will not be public because:(a)The Summons itself seeks a confidentiality provision;(b)The parties are to discuss a confidentiality regime; and(c)In the absence of agreement as to a confidentiality regime, the judge hearing the matter in the Supreme Court of Victoria will not require the parties to file their material electronically (and hence accessibly) but will accept documents filed by email.