STENSON & OSMUND

[2014] FCCA 3108

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STENSON & OSMUND [2014] FCCA 3108

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Further application for discovery.

Applicant: MS STENSON

Respondent: MR OSMUND

File Number: DGC 1706 of 2012

Judgment of: Judge Phipps

Hearing date: 2 September 2014

Date of Last Submission: 2 September 2014

Delivered at: Dandenong

Delivered on: 2 September 2014

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: Appearing on their own behalf

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Busby

ORDERS

1. The application in a case filed 18 August 2014 is dismissed.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA

AT DANDENONG

DGC 1706 of 2012

MS STENSON

Applicant

And

MR OSMUND

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from Transcript)

1. The applicant in this case has filed an application in a case on 18 August 2014.  The case is fixed for final hearing on 13 October 2014 the third time it has been fixed.  On the earlier occasions it has not been ready to proceed.  It is a de facto property case.  The applicant’s case is that a company in which she had an interest and in which the respondent had an interest has had its assets transferred into separate companies.  She wishes to run her case on the basis that the valuation of the new company and the affairs of the new company is what should be taken into account in the de facto property proceedings. 

2. The original company in which the applicant did have an interest and in which the respondent had an interest went into administration, and its assets sold to a new company.  The applicant is claiming that she has not had proper financial disclosure and that she has not had the opportunity to value the assets of the new business.  In September 2012 there was an order made by consent for provision of documents in relation to all of the companies involved and for valuations.  Mr Busby for the respondent says that they have all been provided, except for the last 12 months, and they will be brought up to date in accordance with the trial directions.

3. What seems to me to be the position is that the applicant disputes the accuracy of the documents discovered.  She alleges discovery and disclosure has not been given, but this has happened on two or three occasions prior to the hearing of this application.  It appears to me that if proper disclosure has not yet been given, given the history of this application, then there is little point in making a further order. 

4. If the applicant is correct that proper disclosure has not been given, then that can become an issue at the trial of the case.  If that is established and there are inferences to be drawn from the lack of proper discovery, then that is the way the applicant can pursue her case.  Given the past history I do not see that any further order for discovery or further order for inspection of documents or for valuation would advance the case at all.  Orders have been made before.  If they have not been complied with, that is something to be dealt with at the trial. 

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Phipps

Date:  20 February 2015