FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Newsome & Newsome [2025] FedCFamC2F 747
File number(s): HBC 764 of 2024 Judgment of: JUDGE TAGLIERI Date of judgment: 5 June 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Subpoena objection on behalf of respondent – on grounds of oppression and a fishing expedition – further objection on grounds of legal professional privilege over documents produced by his solicitor relating to a discretionary trust – Subpoena not oppressive - whether documents produced subject to legal professional privilege – whether legal professional privilege has been waived – legal professional privilege was waived by conduct Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 106B, 90AG Cases cited: Biondi & Koen (No 8) [2025] FedCFamC1F 26
Commissioner of Taxation v Rio Tinto Ltd (2006) 151 FCR 341
Council of the NSW Bar Association v Archer (2008) 72 NSWLR 236
DSE (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Intertan Inc [2003] FCA 384
Goudarzi & Bagheri [2017] FamCA 656
Grant & Downs (1976) 135 CLR 13
Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd v Anghie (2003) 7 VR 27
Wardrope & Dunne [1996] 1 Qd R 224 at 226
X Corporation Pty Ltd & Jess and Anor [2016] FamCACF 43
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 33 Date of hearing: 26 May 2025 Place: Hobart Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Trezise Solicitor for the Applicant: PWB Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Sansom Solicitor for the Respondent: Ogilvie Jennings Solicitor for the Objector: Ms Bloomfield, WMM Law ORDERS
HBC 764 of 2024 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MS NEWSOME
Applicant
AND: MR NEWSOME
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE TAGLIERI
DATE OF ORDER:
5 JUNE 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.WMM Law has leave to redact the documents produced by them in response to a subpoena issued on 27 March 2025 to remove or obscure reference to communications, instructions and advice about the Respondent Husband’s will and enduring guardianship.
2.WMM Law produce the redacted documents referenced in Order 1 of these Orders to the Hobart Registry of the Court within 7 days of the date of these Orders.
3.All parties and their representatives have leave to inspect and copy the documents referenced in Order 2 of these Orders once they have been produced in accordance with these Orders.
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.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Newsome & Newsome and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] FedCFamC2F 747
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide whether the subpoena was oppressive or amounted to a fishing expedition, whether the documents were subject to legal professional privilege, and whether such privilege had been waived. The court considered the nature of the trust and the documents produced in response to the subpoena, including whether they contained communications, instructions, and advice about Mr Newsome’s will and enduring guardianship. The court also considered whether legal professional privilege had been waived by conduct.
The court found that the subpoena was not oppressive or a fishing expedition, as it was reasonably directed to documents relevant to the proceedings. The court also found that the documents produced were subject to legal professional privilege, but that this privilege had been waived by conduct. Specifically, the court found that WMM Law had waived legal professional privilege by including the documents in a document production statement and by disclosing the existence of the documents to the applicant’s solicitors. The court therefore granted leave for WMM Law to redact certain information from the documents and ordered that the redacted documents be produced to the court within 7 days. The court also granted leave for all parties and their representatives to inspect and copy the redacted documents once they had been produced.
The court’s orders reflect its determination that the subpoena was not oppressive or a fishing expedition, and that legal professional privilege had been waived by conduct. The orders also provide for the redaction of certain information from the documents produced in response to the subpoena and for the production of the redacted documents to the court.
Orders
Orders of the court
HBC 764 of 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:
MS NEWSOME
Applicant
AND:
MR NEWSOME
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE TAGLIERI
DATE OF ORDER:
5 JUNE 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. WMM Law has leave to redact the documents produced by them in response to a subpoena issued on 27 March 2025 to remove or obscure reference to communications, instructions and advice about the Respondent Husband’s will and enduring guardianship.
2. WMM Law produce the redacted documents referenced in Order 1 of these Orders to the Hobart Registry of the Court within 7 days of the date of these Orders.
3. All parties and their representatives have leave to inspect and copy the documents referenced in Order 2 of these Orders once they have been produced in accordance with these Orders.
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
Full text does not contain this section.