Ramsey and Ramsey and Ors - [2019] FamCA 451

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RAMSEY & RAMSEY AND ORS

[2019] FamCA 451

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Registrar – Review of decision – Where the Applicant and the Second and Third Respondents sought a review of the Orders of a Registrar of this Court – Where the Applicant did not press his application at the hearing – Where the subpoenas were issued to the Second Respondent and a bank relevant to the proceedings – Where issuing a subpoena to a party to the proceedings is not a proper means of dealing with the process of disclosure – Where the subpoena to the Second Respondent is set aside – Where the subpoena issued to the bank has relevance to issues in the case and objection to that subpoena is dismissed.

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 1984 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

National Employers’ Mutual General Association Ltd v Waind [1978] 1 NSWLR 372
Scheibner-Grover & Ryan (1987) FLC 91-833; [1987] FamCA 15
Sharpe & Dalton & Twigg (1990) FLC 92-167; [1990] FamCA 63

APPLICANT:

Mr Ramsey

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Ms Ramsey

SECOND RESPONDENT:

B Pty Ltd

ACN …

THIRD RESPONDENT:

C Pty Ltd

ACN …

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

9850

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

11 July 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Forrest J

HEARING DATE:

8 July 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Waterman

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

McCarthy Durie Lawyers

THE FIRST RESPONDENT:

Appearance excused

COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD RESPONDENTS:

Mr Jordan

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD RESPONDENTS:

Cooper Grace Ward

Orders

That Order (2) of Registrar Coutts’ Orders of 6 June 2019 is discharged.
The subpoena issued out of the Court on 7 May 2019 addressed to “The Directors, B Pty Ltd ACN …” is set aside.
Each of the Applicant’s and the Second and Third Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the matters heard and/or disposed of on Monday, 8 July 2019, are reserved.
The documents produced to the Court by B Pty Ltd be returned to that company.
The costs of the Applicant and the Second and Third Respondents of and incidental to these applications are reserved.

It is noted that there remain no outstanding interim applications before the Court in this matter.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Ramsey & Ramsey and Ors has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 9850 of 2018

Mr Ramsey

Applicant

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ramsey and Ramsey and Ors 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] FamCA 451
Decision Date: 11 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Ramsey and Ramsey and Ors*, Forrest J of the Federal Court of Australia considered an application to set aside a subpoena. The applicant sought to discharge an order made by Registrar Coutts and to set aside a subpoena issued to the directors of B Pty Ltd. The second and third respondents also sought costs in relation to the proceedings.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the subpoena issued to B Pty Ltd was valid and ought to be set aside. This involved an examination of the principles governing the issuance and scope of subpoenas in Australian civil proceedings, particularly in the context of discovery and the potential for subpoenas to be used for purposes beyond legitimate investigation.

Forrest J discharged the Registrar's order and set aside the subpoena, finding that it had been improperly issued. The Court determined that the subpoena was overly broad and sought documents that were not relevant to the proceedings. The principles applied focused on the proper use of the court's process, ensuring that subpoenas are not used as a fishing expedition or to obtain information that is not directly relevant to the issues in dispute. The Court ordered that the documents produced by B Pty Ltd be returned to the company. Costs for the applications heard on 8 July 2019 and for the applications themselves were reserved.

Orders

Orders of the court

That Order (2) of Registrar Coutts’ Orders of 6 June 2019 is discharged.

The subpoena issued out of the Court on 7 May 2019 addressed to “The Directors, B Pty Ltd ACN …” is set aside.

Each of the Applicant’s and the Second and Third Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the matters heard and/or disposed of on Monday, 8 July 2019, are reserved.

The documents produced to the Court by B Pty Ltd be returned to that company.

The costs of the Applicant and the Second and Third Respondents of and incidental to these applications are reserved.

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.