Sampey and Sampey and Anor - [2016] FamCA 343

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SAMPEY & SAMPEY AND ANOR

[2016] FamCA 343

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – REVIEW OF REGISTRAR’S DECISION– OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA – Where certain objections made by the respondents to subpoenas issued by the wife were upheld by the Registrar – Where the wife seeks a review of the Registrar’s orders – Where the respondents dispute the relevance of the documents sought to the proceedings between the husband and the wife – Where the respondents assert that compliance with the subpoena would be oppressive and may reveal confidential information – Where the wife asserts the documents sought are necessary to ascertain the true financial position of the husband – Where the Court finds that the documents may be relevant to the proceedings

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

Andrew Garrett Wine Resorts & Anor v National Australia Bank Limited (No. 6) (2005) 92 SASR 419
The Commissioner for Railways v. Small (1938) 38 S.R. (N.S.W.) 564
Hatton, V.F. v Attorney General of Commonwealth of Australia, Commonwealth Bank of Australia and Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia (2000) FLC 93-038
Mulley & Marney v Manifold (1959) 103 CLR 341
National Employers' Mutual General Association Ltd v Waind and Hill [1978] 1 NSWLR 372
Sadek and Ors & Hall and Anor [2015] FamCAFC 23
Sharpe & Dalton; Twigg (other party) (1990) FLC 92-167
White and Tulloch v White (1995) FLC 92-640

APPLICANT:

Ms Sampey

1^st RESPONDENT:	C Pty Ltd
2^nd RESPONDENT:	Ms F

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

2013

DATE DELIVERED:

11 April 2016

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Le Poer Trench J

HEARING DATE:

10 September 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr White SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Michael Conley Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

Bransgroves Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

Mr Peadon

Orders

IT IS ORDERED

Orders made by the Registrar on 14 January 2015 are set aside.
The objection made to the subpoena dated 17 November 2014 to Westpac Banking Corp Ltd. is dismissed. The parties are to have leave to inspect those documents upon production.
In relation to the subpoena issued to Ms F on 17 November 2014 the objection made to production of documents called for in paragraphs 2 and 3 is dismissed.
The objection by C Pty Ltd is dismissed. All documents not produced and which are sought in the subpoena dated 17 December 2014 are to be produced forthwith and is thereafter are made available for inspection by the parties.
The wife has leave to photocopy documents produced under subpoena by C Pty Ltd, BB Pty Limited, Y Pty Limited, Ms F, Sampey Properties Pty Limited (under administration), D Pty Limited (“D”), National Australia Bank, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, American Express Australia Limited, CC Hospital and to the two subpoenas issued to Westpac Banking Corporation UPON CONDITION that all copies remain under the control of the wife’s legal representatives and are returned to the court within 60 days of the Final…

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 Sampey and Sampey 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

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: [2016] FamCA 343
Decision Date: 11 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Sampey and Sampey and Anor*, Justice Le Poer Trench of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered objections to subpoenas issued in family law proceedings. The dispute involved the production of documents by various third parties, including financial institutions and companies, which were sought by one of the parties to the marriage.

The court was required to determine whether objections raised by certain parties, specifically C Pty Ltd and Ms F, to the production of documents sought by subpoena were valid. The central legal issue was the scope and enforceability of the subpoenas, particularly concerning the relevance and necessity of the documents requested for the resolution of the property and maintenance dispute.

Justice Le Poer Trench dismissed the objections raised by C Pty Ltd and Ms F, finding that the documents sought were relevant to the proceedings. The court reasoned that the subpoenas were properly issued and that the requested documents were necessary for a full and proper determination of the parties' financial circumstances. Consequently, the court ordered the production of the documents and granted the wife leave to photocopy them, subject to strict conditions regarding their control and return. Costs were reserved for further argument.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS ORDERED

Orders made by the Registrar on 14 January 2015 are set aside.

The objection made to the subpoena dated 17 November 2014 to Westpac Banking Corp Ltd. is dismissed. The parties are to have leave to inspect those documents upon production.

In relation to the subpoena issued to Ms F on 17 November 2014 the objection made to production of documents called for in paragraphs 2 and 3 is dismissed.

The objection by C Pty Ltd is dismissed. All documents not produced and which are sought in the subpoena dated 17 December 2014 are to be produced forthwith and is thereafter are made available for inspection by the parties.

The wife has leave to photocopy documents produced under subpoena by C Pty Ltd, BB Pty Limited, Y Pty Limited, Ms F, Sampey Properties Pty Limited (under administration), D Pty Limited (“D”), National Australia Bank, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, American Express Australia Limited, CC Hospital and to the two subpoenas issued to Westpac Banking Corporation UPON CONDITION that all copies remain under the control of the wife’s legal representatives and are returned to the court within 60 days of the Final Orders being made or the determination of any appeal which is filed within the time prescribed, thereafter.

Should any other party require photocopy access to the documents produced on subpoena an application may be made to Justice Le Poer Trench in chambers.

Costs of each party reserved for argument by written submission to be made within 28 days of final property and/or maintenance orders being made in the proceeding.

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.