MILFORD & DOUMAS

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MILFORD & DOUMAS [2017] FamCA 339

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Confidentiality agreement – where the applicant seeks an order that the respondent execute a confidentiality agreement – where the applicant alleges the respondent has disclosed financial information to a third party – where the respondent denies disclosing financial information to a third party – where the evidence does not constitute exceptional circumstances to require a confidentiality agreement – application for confidentiality agreement dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 114(3)

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 9.08(3), sch 1 pt 1 cl 4(8), 4(9)

Harman v Secretary of State for Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280
Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125
Stinson & Stinson and Anor [2012] FamCA 520
Vincenzo & Vincenzo [2012] FamCA 427

APPLICANT: Mr Milford

RESPONDENT: Ms Doumas

FILE NUMBER: MLC 8603 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 23 May 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Thornton J

HEARING DATE: 4 April 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Brown QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Kennedy Partners

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Sweeney

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Kenna Teasdale Lawyers

Orders

1. Paragraph 7 of the applicant husband’s Response to an Application in a Case filed 2 March 2017 be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 8603  of 2016

Mr Milford

Applicant

And

Ms Doumas

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The application

1. The husband seeks an interim order that the wife execute a confidentiality agreement with respect to the business documents disclosed by him, including those which disclose information in relation to the financial circumstances of third parties.  This is the order sought pursuant to paragraph 7 of the husband’s Response to the wife’s Application in a Case filed by the husband on 2 March 2017.

2. The wife opposes the application on the basis that there is no evidentiary foundation for the order sought.

3. The substantive proceedings concern competing applications for property settlement pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) and an application by the wife for spousal maintenance. Orders have previously been made for discovery. The husband is also seeking orders in relation to parenting in the substantive proceedings.

Background

1. The parties separated in July 2015 after an 11 year marriage.  The husband is aged 54.  Since 1995 he has been a businessman. The wife is aged…