Stinson and Stinson

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STINSON & STINSON [2012] FamCA 636

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Confidentiality agreement - no reason to do more than ask the wife to sign an acknowledgment that she understands her obligations

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Stinson

RESPONDENT: Mr Stinson

FILE NUMBER: MLC 9869 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 3 August 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 3 August 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Glick SC with Mr Strum

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Taussig Cherrie Fildes

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Grobtuch

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Kennedy Partners

Orders

1. That paragraphs 1 to 4 of the orders made on 9 July 2012 are discharged.

2. That the wife forthwith execute an acknowledgement addressed to Mr Hunt and to the husband in the terms of document attached to this order.

3. That the wife’s firm of solicitors execute an acknowledgement addressed to Mr Hunt in the terms of the annexure relevant to them attached to these orders.

4. That the husband’s response seeking interim orders filed 18 June 2012 is otherwise dismissed.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 9869  of 2011

Ms Stinson

Applicant

And

Mr Stinson

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 18 June 2012, the husband filed his response to the amended application of the wife filed 1 June 2012.  In his response, he inter alia sought the following specific order:

   That the wife and her solicitor each sign a confidentially agreement in the form annexed hereto and marked “A”, prior to the husband making disclosure of financial documents and information relating to his business interests in the entities which comprise the [B] Group.

   The annexure was not attached but I have seen the relevant document, it being attached to the affidavit material.

2. It was common ground that the husband and his colleague are involved in an extensive list of corporate entities. 

3. In an application in a case filed 18 May 2012, that business colleague sought similar orders. 

4. Late in the day of 26 June 2012, I heard argument from all parties. 

5. On 9 July 2012, I made orders and delivered reasons.  The orders included a dismissal of the application by the husband’s colleague filed 18 May 2012 but it did not deal with the interim response of the husband filed 18 June 2012.

6. On 3 August 2012, in addition to bringing to my attention the inaccuracy of the wording of the orders I made on 9 July 2012, it was noted that I had not determined the husband’s response.  Accordingly, these are my reasons for making the orders set out at the commencement of them.

7. The husband was represented in the proceedings by Mr Geddes of senior counsel whose submission was that the husband was very…