Reeves and Reeves

[2010] FamCA 205

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REEVES & REEVES [2010] FamCA 205

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CASE MANAGEMENT – s 79 application

APPLICANT: MS REEVES

RESPONDENT: MR REEVES

INTERVENOR: L REEVES

FILE NUMBER: MLC 12011 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 11 MARCH 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: MELBOURNE

PLACE HEARD: MELBOURNE

JUDGMENT OF: YOUNG J

HEARING DATE: 11 MARCH 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: MR TAUSSIG

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: TAUSSIG CHERRIE & ASSOCIATES

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: MR SPICER

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: GODDARD ELLIOTT

COUNSEL FOR THE INTERVENOR: MR LE FEFEBVRE

SOLICITOR FOR THE INTERVENOR: WESTMINSTER LAWYERS

Orders

IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT:

1. THAT leave be granted to abridge all times and to facilitate the filing this day of the further affidavits of Mr K affirmed 10 March 2010 and Andrew John Goddard affirmed 10 March 2010.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

1. THAT all extant applications be listed for mention before Young J at 10.30 a.m. on 9 June 2010.

2. THAT all extant applications be listed for a one (1) day defended hearing, on interim issues as have been outlined to the Court this day, on 28 July 2010 at 10.00 a.m. before Young J.

3. RESERVE costs of all parties of and incidental to the hearing this day (and it is intended that all such reserved cost issues be one of the matters for hearing and determination on the adjourned hearing date).

4. THAT the extempore reasons for judgment be transcribed, be placed upon the Court file and be made available to all parties.

IT IS CERTIFIED

1. THAT pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules this matter reasonably required the attendance of Senior Counsel for the wife, Counsel for the husband and Solicitor appearing as Counsel for the Intervenor.

IT IS NOTED:

A.THAT a Financial Conciliation Conference is fixed for 17 March 2010 before Registrar Field and all parties have advised the Court they will make a bona fide endeavour to resolve all financial and property issues at that time.

B.THAT Senior Counsel for the wife and the Solicitor for the Intervenor have this day advised the Court that, to the best of their client’s knowledge, information or belief, each of them have no written documents, records or files, and no knowledge of same, relating to the purported Trust of and concerning the property at S (as has been outlined in the accompanying extempore reasons for judgment delivered this day).

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Reeves & Reeves is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 12011 of 2007

MS REEVES

Applicant

And

MR REEVES

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter is before me for both case management and certain extant interim applications that were to be the subject of a hearing this day.  Mr Taussig, One of her Majesty’s Counsel, appears for the wife, Mr Spicer of Counsel appears for the husband, and Mr Le Fefebvre appears as Solicitor for the Intervenor, who is the adult son of the parties.  By leave I am asked to abridge all times and permit the filing of an affidavit of Mr K, affirmed 10 March 2010, and a further affidavit of the husband’s Solicitor, Mr Andrew John Goddard, also affirmed 10 March 2010.  By consent I will make those orders.  There are a number of interim and extant applications relating to the production and disclosure of advice from Counsel, upon which privilege is claimed on the one hand and said to be waived on the other. 

2. That is a matter to be adjourned for further hearing.  Otherwise, there are disputes about the further valuation of properties and matters relating to production of evidence for trial.  Additionally, and in relation to the Intervenor, there are extant issues about how and when that situation should be addressed and whether that matter could or should be the subject of a separate and prior hearing.  Those matters remain for continued discussion between the parties and may be the subject of the adjourned defended hearing on interim issues on 28 July 2010, as I will provide for in my orders of this day. 

3. I do, however, want to carefully highlight to the parties that I had made no specific determination that this court will entertain a separate discrete hearing of one day, or whatever leave of time is required, on that intervention issue – particularly as to whether there be a discrete hearing or whether it be heard in the trial of all substantive issues.  That is a matter for further submission and addresses from counsel.  For that purpose, I will therefore list this matter for mention before me at 10.30 a.m. on 9 June, so as a more informed determination can be made about future hearing dates and interim issues, if any. 

4. An issue was raised by Mr Spicer today which relates to all ownership issues of and concerning the property at S. 

5. That property is now registered in the joint names of the husband and wife but subject to a claim by the Intervenor.  Mr Spicer had sought that a further affidavit of documents be filed, on behalf of the wife and the Intervenor, for the purposes of disclosing any written document, record, file or instrument of or supporting that trust or any issue of a change in ownership of that S property.  Both Mr Taussig and Mr Le Fefebvre have taken instructions from their clients who are present at Court this day.  Each of them have disclosed to the Court that, to the best of the knowledge, information and belief of their respective clients, there are no written or available documents, records or files of and relating to the purported trust concerning that S property.  

6. Each of those experienced legal practitioners have advised the Court that evidence of and related to the purported trust, or any issue arising within that framework, will be viva voce and relate to past conversations or discussions as between each of those individuals or otherwise a former bookkeeper or associate of the deceased (Mr Z).  I intend to record this notation within these extempore reasons, and also upon the Court order to simplify the hearing of this issue and to give certainty to the husband’s Solicitors in their preparation of trial, knowing that they will not be either surprised by or disadvantaged with the appearance of any written document which, clearly, on the disclosures to the Court this day does not exist or is not known to exist.  

7. Hopefully, dealing with this matter in such a pragmatic way will speed up issues and give certainty to the ability to discuss all matters in the Registrar’s Financial Conference which is fixed for 17 March, that is, next Wednesday before Registrar Field.  Otherwise, the discussions at Court today have encompassed the preliminary issues of valuations, and the range of valuations of various properties and the overall approach adopted by Senior Counsel for the wife for purposes of discussion and hearing, that the assets can and should (he would allege) be divided into three categories being the private assets of the parties, the assets of the estate to which the wife may have an interest and, otherwise, general business assets. 

8. I make no comment or finding upon any of those matters and they will no doubt all be refined by respective solicitors to facilitate meaningful out of court discussions at the upcoming conference.  I will have these brief extempore reasons for judgment transcribed and placed upon the court file and made available to all parties.  I record they have been delivered in the presence of all parties and all practitioners. 

I certify that the preceding paragraphs are
a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein
of The Honourable Justice Young

………………………………………………………..
Associate: