Peters and Giannopoulos & Ors

In the Family Court of Australia, Berman J considered an interim property dispute between a wife and her husband, along with two trusts (the second and third respondents). The wife had issued subpoenas to the trusts seeking the production of documents spanning 21 years, which the trusts opposed on the grounds of oppressiveness. The central issue was the apparent relevance of the documents sought to the wife's case, which alleged that the trusts' assets were held on constructive or resulting trust for the husband.

The court was required to determine the extent of disclosure obligations at the preliminary stages of proceedings, specifically considering the "apparent relevance" of documents to the main issues. Additionally, the court had to assess the wife's claim that the trusts' assets were held on constructive or resulting trust for the husband, noting that her evidence did not adequately particularise the equitable principles relied upon or the relief sought. The wife also sought orders for the valuation of the trusts' assets and the trusts themselves, with the husband to cover her costs, but these were opposed.

Berman J reasoned that while parties have an obligation to disclose directly relevant documents, the wife's subpoenaed requests lacked sufficient apparent relevance to her case, particularly given the 21-year span. Consequently, certain oppressive items within the subpoenas were struck out. The court also found that the wife needed to better particularise her position regarding the constructive or resulting trust claims and the relief sought before any orders for valuations could be made, especially considering the substantial costs involved and the husband's status as a mere beneficiary.

Accordingly, the court ordered the production of specific, more narrowly defined documents from each trust, including trust deeds and documents relating to the husband's resignation as a director and share transfers. Several paragraphs from the subpoenas directed to X Pty Ltd and Y Pty Ltd were struck out. Furthermore, the wife was ordered to file and serve a statement of contentions of fact and law within sixty days, detailing the relief sought, material facts relied upon, and the legal principles underpinning her claims. No orders were made regarding the valuations at this stage.