Ramos & Ramos
[2024] FedCFamC2F 1181
•27 August 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Ramos & Ramos [2024] FedCFamC2F 1181
File number(s): SYC 3336 of 2024 Judgment of: JUDGE STREET Date of judgment: 27 August 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURE – notices of objections dismissed – raising claim for forensic purpose and claim of legal professional privilege Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 6 Date of hearing: 27 August 2024 Place: Sydney Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms M McMahon of Diamond Conway Lawyers Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms L Sanderson of Holmes Donnelly & Co Solicitors ORDERS
SYC 3336 of 2024 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MS RAMOS
Applicant
AND: MR RAMOS
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE STREET
DATE OF ORDER:
27 AUGUST 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Amended Notice of Objection filed on 21 August 2024 in relation to B Pty Ltd is dismissed.
2.All the Notice of Objections filed on 19 August 2024 are dismissed.
3.Subject to order 4, leave is granted to the parties to have photocopying access to all documents produced under the subpoenas subject to the ruling made on the claim for legal professional privilege in respect of B Pty Ltd.
4.In relation to the packet produced by B Pty Ltd, which are documents that are subject to the claim of legal professional privilege, the Court directs that photocopying access is to be first given to the respondent father who is to produce a schedule in respect of any claim for legal professional privilege that is to be maintained, and is to be provided to the applicant wife’s solicitors within 14 days.
5.If there is a challenge sought to be made in respect of any claim for legal professional privilege, the matter will be listed within 7 days of a notification by the applicant wife’s solicitor of pressing for the production.
6.Costs be reserved in respect of the Notice of Objections filed on 19 and 21 August 2024.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE STREET
These were Notices of Objections proceedings lodged by the respondent father (“the father”) on 19 and 21 August 2024 on broad grounds, in substance alleging a want of a forensic purpose but also raising challenges in respect of legal professional privilege in relation to documents produced by B Pty Ltd, being an accountant.
It is also the case that the father provided the Court with proposed short minutes of order that effectively sought to vary terms of the respective subpoenas and, on its face, patently recognised the legitimate forensic purpose of the scope of each of the subpoenas but sought to curtail the content of what might be produced. The proposed short minutes of order are inconsistent with the assertions of a want of relevance in respect of the property proceedings to be heard in October 2024 by this Court.
Notices of Objection should not lightly be lodged, and none of the Notices of Objections are ones which the Court is willing to uphold. In respect of B Pty Ltd, the Court was informed that the accountant may have received documents that could be the subject of legal professional privilege, and it was sought on behalf of the father that he have first access to those documents that were produced, that were not the subject of a claim for legal professional privilege. If there are documents that are within the production that is not the subject of a claim for legal professional privilege, there clearly will be no waiver and a right to clawback, and the Court has little doubt that the lawyers for the applicant mother would recognise that there has been no waiver in respect of those documents and would not inspect the same if it was patent that it was a legal advice letter or similar document and common interest privilege giving rise to an obvious claim of legal professional privilege. The Court is not satisfied that it is appropriate to permit the father to have first access to the documents which are not the subject of claim for legal professional privilege.
The Court has made orders that will facilitate the determination of any dispute if there is one in respect of documents that are the subject of any claim for legal professional privilege in respect of the documents produced by B Pty Ltd, which the Court will determine in due course if necessary.
The Court is satisfied that subpoenas have legitimate forensic purpose and is not satisfied that there a contraction of scope as sought by the father.
Accordingly, the Court makes the above orders.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Oral Published Reasons for Judgment of Judge Street. Associate:
Dated: 30 August 2024
0
0
0