Paget and Dubois

Case [2013] FCCA 1746

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PAGET & DUBOIS [2013] FCCA 1746
Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Application under s.79A of the Family Law Act 1975 to set aside orders made by consent in 2010 – allegation that husband concealed £250,000 in (country omitted) in 2010 – allegation based wholly on hearsay – application to dismiss pursuant to s.17A of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 – consideration of authorities concerning s.17A.

Legislation:  

Family Law Act 1975, s.79A
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, ss.17A, 45
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, rr.13.10, 24.03
Evidence Act 1995, s.75
Lindon v The Commonwealth (No.2) (1996) 70 ALJR 541
Beck v Beck (2004) FLC 93-181
Bigg v Suzi (1998) FLC 92-799
Pelerman v Pelerman (2000) FLC 93-037
Ting v Fingal [2013] FamCA 29
Rana v Deakin University [2012] FMCA 575
Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Co of Australia Limited [2008] FCAFC 60
Priestley v Godwin (No.3) [2008] FCA 1529
Applicant: MS PAGET
Respondent: MR DUBOIS
File Number: MLC 4015 of 2008
Judgment of: Judge Burchardt
Hearing date: 23 October 2013
Date of Last Submission: 23 October 2013
Delivered at: Melbourne
Delivered on: 8 November 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Salamanca
Solicitors for the Applicant: Westminster Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Indovino
Solicitors for the Respondent: Joannidis & Associates

ORDERS

  1. The respondent provide the applicant with a customer authority required by the (omitted) Bank to enable the applicant to make enquiries with the bank as to any account held by the respondent in 2009 or 2010.

  2. The costs of any such enquiry be paid by the applicant, subject to any further order of this Court.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT MELBOURNE

MLC 4015 of 2008

MS PAGET

Applicant

And

MR DUBOIS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. In order to understand this matter it is necessary to commence with some history.

  2. On 25 February 2010, orders were made between the applicant and respondent, then relatively recently divorced, at a time when both were legally represented.

  3. Relevantly, their property issues were resolved by consent and the pool, on any view, was a relatively modest one.

  4. According to the applicant’s financial statement filed on 17 July 2009, there was approximately $300,000 worth of equity in the former matrimonial home and some superannuation.

  5. On 10 May 2013, the applicant filed an application in a case seeking, as final orders, an order pursuant to s.79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Family Law Act”) setting aside the 2010 orders and spousal maintenance. Interim orders were sought in respect of discovery pursuant to r.24.03 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001.

  6. The wife’s accompanying affidavit was filed on 10 May 2013 and set out the history of the parties’ relationship and their previous proceedings.

  7. At paragraph 14, she deposed to the…

Continue reading Paget and Dubois

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
PAGET & DUBOIS [2013] FCCA 1746
Case
[2013] FCCA 1746
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Paget and Dubois*, heard by Judge Burchardt, the applicant sought an order compelling the respondent to provide a customer authority. This authority was necessary for the applicant to make enquiries with a specified bank regarding any accounts held by the respondent during the years 2009 and 2010. The precise nature of the underlying dispute necessitating these enquiries was not detailed in the provided text.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether it had the power to compel the respondent to furnish the customer authority as requested by the applicant. This involved considering the Court's jurisdiction and the appropriate circumstances for making such an order, particularly in relation to facilitating investigations into potential financial matters.

Judge Burchardt ordered that the respondent provide the applicant with the required customer authority. This would permit the applicant to make enquiries with the bank concerning any accounts held by the respondent in 2009 or 2010. The Court stipulated that the applicant would bear the costs associated with these enquiries, unless a further order was made by the Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The respondent provide the applicant with a customer authority required by the (omitted) Bank to enable the applicant to make enquiries with the bank as to any account held by the respondent in 2009 or 2010.

2.

The costs of any such enquiry be paid by the applicant, subject to any further order of this Court.

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.