Stopford Malloy & Malloy (No 2)

The matter before the court was an objection by Services Australia to a subpoena to produce issued by the applicant, Ms Stopford Malloy, seeking the production of records or information held by Centrelink. The objection was based on statutory prohibitions on the production of such records or information to the Court. The court was required to determine whether officers of Centrelink have in their possession documents or notice of information “because of” the performance or exercise of their duties, functions or powers under various federal statutes and whether “person” includes “court” in federal social security laws. Additionally, the court had to consider whether documents or information provided to Centrelink should be protected from production to the Court and whether sections 201 and 207 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) permits or prohibits disclosure to the Court.

The court held that the objection to the subpoena should be upheld. The court noted that the wife had pointed to section 201 of the Administration Act, which provides that nothing in the Act prevents a person from disclosing information to another person if the information is disclosed for the purposes of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 or the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. However, the court held that the exceptions which allow production or disclosure by one "person" to another, do not permit disclosure to a court, because a court is not "a person". The court noted that there is long standing authority across all Australian jurisdictions that a statutory prohibition on officers divulging information to "a person" does not extend to a court, because a court is not "a person".

Accordingly, the court held that the objection to the subpoena should be upheld. The court set aside the subpoena issued on 7 July 2021 by the applicant and made no order as to the costs of the determination of the objection.

This decision is important for parties involved in family law proceedings who seek to obtain information from Centrelink, as it highlights the limitations on the disclosure of such information and the importance of considering the relevant statutory provisions. It also reinforces the principle that a court is not a "person" for the purposes of statutory prohibitions on the disclosure of information.