FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| PROSDOKIMOS & PROSDOKIMOS AND ANOR | [2015] FamCA 375 |
| FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Where a third party objects to subpoenas – Consideration of rule 15.26(1) – Where a registrar made a decision to uphold the objector’s notice of objections with certain exceptions – Where the wife seeks a review of the registrar’s decision – Where the objector is the appointer of the trust – Whether the objector has a sufficient interest in a subpoena – Whether the subpoenas are an abuse of process – Whether the subpoenas are a fishing expedition – Whether the subpoenas lack relevance – Where the objections to the subpoenas are dismissed. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 15.26(1) |
| Bailey v Beagle Management Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 60 Cahill & Cahill (No 2) [2013] FamCA 453 Hatton v The Attorney General (Cth) (2000) FLC 93-038 National Employees Mutual General Association Limited v Waind & Hill [1978] 1 NSWLR 372 Sadek and Ors & Hall and Anor [2015] FamCAFC 23 |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Prosdokimos |
| FIRST RESPONDENT: | Mr Prosdokimos |
| SECOND RESPONDENT: | Ms B |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 1401 | of | 2014 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 22 May 2015 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Aldridge J |
| HEARING DATE: | 13 April 2015 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Ms Loweson |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Konstan Lawyers |
| COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: | No appearance |
| SOLICITOR FOR FIRST RESPONDENT: | Karras Partners |
| COUNSEL FOR SECOND RESPONDENT: | Mr Kearney SC |
| SOLICITOR FOR SECOND RESPONDENT: | York Family Law |
Orders
That the objections lodged by Ms B as to the subpoenas filed on 7 August 2014 and directed to:
(a) D Pty Ltd;
(b) E Pty Ltd;
(c) F Accounting; and
(d) G Pty Ltd.
are dismissed.
That the documents are to be produced within fourteen (14) days of today.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Prosdokimos & Prosdokimos has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
FILE NUMBER: SYC 1401 of 2014
| Ms Prosdokimos |
Applicant
and
| Mr Prosdokimos |
First Respondent
and
Ms B
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
In property proceedings between Ms Prosdokimos (“the wife”) and Mr Prosdokimos (“the husband”), the wife issued subpoenas to a number of third parties. Ms B, the husband’s mother (“the second respondent”), lodged objections to those subpoenas.
The issues before the court are whether the second respondent has the standing to object and, if so, whether the subpoenas seek documents that have relevance to the proceedings.
Those objections were determined by Registrar George on 19 December 2014. The Notice of Objection to the subpoena served upon D Pty Ltd was upheld except in relation to paragraph 2.11 of that subpoena. The Notice of Objection to the subpoena served upon F Accounting was upheld…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Prosdokimos and Prosdokimos and Anor 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
- [2015] FamCA 375
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the objections raised by Ms B against the subpoenas were well-founded. This required the Court to consider the legal grounds upon which objections to subpoenas can be made, particularly in the context of civil litigation, and to assess whether the specific objections raised by Ms B met the necessary legal threshold for setting aside or quashing the subpoenas.
Aldridge J dismissed the objections lodged by Ms B. The Court's reasoning, though not detailed in the provided text, implicitly found that the subpoenas were validly issued and that the objections lacked sufficient legal merit to warrant their being upheld. Consequently, the Court ordered that the documents sought by the subpoenas were to be produced within fourteen days of the date of the decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That the objections lodged by Ms B as to the subpoenas filed on 7 August 2014 and directed to:
(a) D Pty Ltd;
(b) E Pty Ltd;
(c) F Accounting; and
(d) G Pty Ltd.
are dismissed.
2.
That the documents are to be produced within fourteen (14) days of today.
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.