Plantier & Plantier - [2022] FedCFamC2F 840

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Plantier & Plantier [2022] FedCFamC2F 840

File number(s): DGC 1773 of 2019

Judgment of: JUDGE KIRTON

Date of judgment: 30 June 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Applications in a proceeding – release of implied Harman undertaking – exemption from s.121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) prohibition against publication and dissemination of court documents – mutual applications to use certain documents in a Fair Work proceeding filed in the Federal Court of Australia and the Australian Taxation Office – unilateral application of the Wife to provide documents to the D Authority and the D Commissioner – Application to provide documents to the D Authority and the D Commissioner refused

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss. 4, 121

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr.11.71, 12.06

Cases cited:
Harman v Secretary of State for Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280

Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125; [2008] HCA 36

In the marriage of T & T (1984) FLC 91-588; [1984] FamCA 66

Liberty Funding Pty Ltd v Phoenix Capital Ltd [2005] FCAFC 3

Plantier & Plantier [2020] FCCA 1399 (unreported)

Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589; [1981] HCA 45

Re Edelston; ex parte Donnelly (1988) FCR 434

Re Springfield Nominees Pty Ltd [1992] FCA 472

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 83

Date of hearing: 20 May 2022

Place: Melbourne, by video link

The Applicant: Self-represented

Counsel for the Respondent Dr K Hanscombe QC and Dr R Smith

Solicitors for the Respondent Clayton Utz

ORDERS

DGC 1773 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS PLANTIER

Applicant

AND:
MR PLANTIER

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE KIRTON

DATE OF ORDER:

30 JUNE 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Applicant Wife (Wife) and the Respondent Husband (Husband), and their legal advisers, be relieved of the implied undertaking to this Court in Harman v Secretary of State for Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280 with respect to:
(a)Any document sworn or affirmed and filed in this Court in this proceeding, being DGC 1773 of 2019 (Proceeding);
(b)Any Orders made and Judgments delivered in the Proceeding, including these Reasons for Judgment;
(c)Notices to admit facts and/or documents filed in the Proceeding and any response thereto, whether filed or otherwise;
(d)Case summaries or outlines of case filed in the Proceeding;
(e)The case summaries submitted to the Court by the Husband and the Wife for the Interim Defended Hearing of the Proceeding on 26 May 2020; and
(f)Such of the documents in the Wife’s Court Book submitted to the Court for the Final Hearing of the Proceeding on 6 August 2020 that are referred to in:
(i)The Wife’s Affidavits filed on 4 February 2020, 24 February 2020 and 3 August 2020; and
(ii)The Notice to Admit Facts and Authenticity of Documents, filed by the Wife on 10 February…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Plantier & Plantier

Details

AGLC: Plantier & Plantier [2022] FedCFamC2F 840
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 840
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Plantier & Plantier before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia concerned applications by the parties to be excused from the implied Harman undertaking and the s.121 prohibition against publication and dissemination of court documents. The Wife sought to use certain documents in a Fair Work proceeding and to provide those documents to the D Authority and the D Commissioner. The Husband opposed the Wife's application and applied for costs in relation to the dismissal of the Wife's application for contempt. The Court determined that both parties should be relieved from the implied Harman undertaking in relation to certain documents for the limited purpose of using those documents in the Fair Work proceeding and providing them to tax authorities concerning the Husband's tax affairs. The Court declined to make an order relieving the Wife from the implied Harman undertaking for the purpose of providing the documents to the D Authority and the D Commissioner. The Court ordered a timetable for the filing of written submissions in relation to the Husband's costs application.

Orders