Pacek & Saltzer

This matter concerned an application by Ms Pacek (the applicant wife) and Mr Saltzer (the respondent husband) before Bennett J in the Family Court of Australia. The proceedings involved significant legal costs and a need for judicial management, with the court noting the disproportionate expenditure incurred by both parties.

The court was required to determine several issues, including the assessment of costs previously ordered to be paid by the husband to the wife, the disclosure of the husband's legal costs and their sources, and the provision of evidence regarding funds held in trust by the husband's solicitors. Additionally, the court needed to address the immediate engagement of a new IT provider for H Group, a company directed by both parties, and establish terms for IT access to prevent either party from having sole administrative control. The court also had to manage the procedural aspects of upcoming hearings, including the filing and service of evidence and the potential issuance of subpoenas.

Bennett J applied principles of judicial management to address the escalating costs and procedural complexities. The court ordered that costs be assessed and referred the matter for that purpose, requiring the husband to provide detailed affidavits regarding his legal expenses and their origins. The solicitors for the husband were also directed to provide evidence of funds in their trust account and copies of relevant documents. In relation to H Group, the court made consent orders for the immediate engagement of ZZ Consultants as the IT provider, with specific terms designed to ensure neither party had exclusive administrative access, pending further orders. The court also set strict timelines for the filing of evidence for upcoming hearings and permitted the parties to issue subpoenas for document production.

The court adjourned the wife's application and the husband's application for derivative leave to a further hearing on 17 May 2021. Costs were reserved, and directions were given for the transcription and filing of the reasons for decision. The orders were made by consent, with specific notations regarding the parties' agreement to maintain the status quo concerning IT access and the husband's acknowledgment of the orders as "holding orders" in light of his separate application under the Corporations Act. The court noted the substantial legal costs incurred by both parties to date.