Strahan & Strahan & Commissioner of Taxation

In this appeal, Ms Strahan (the appellant) sought leave to appeal decisions made by the Family Court. The first appeal (SOA 37 of 2012) concerned the refusal to order the husband to provide authorities to the Australian Taxation Office and the Hong Kong Inland Revenue Department to provide the appellant with various information. The second appeal (SOA 42 of 2012) challenged the dismissal of the appellant's application for a further substantial sum by way of partial property settlement, payment for legal expenses and spousal maintenance. The third appeal (SOA 26 of 2013) related to the rejection of a claim for legal professional privilege in respect of the production of specific documents on the application of the husband. The fourth appeal (SOA 71 of 2012) was brought by the husband, however, this appeal was discontinued prior to the hearing of the other appeals. The Full Court held that leave should not be granted in respect of the appeals brought by the appellant. The Full Court found that the appellant had not demonstrated any error of principle or substantial injustice caused by the trial judge's decisions. The Full Court also found that the appellant had failed to provide adequate descriptions of the documents for which legal professional privilege was claimed. In respect of the financial appeal, the Full Court found that the trial judge had properly considered the appellant's application for a further sum by way of partial property settlement, payment for legal expenses and spousal maintenance. The Full Court concluded that the trial judge's findings were adequately illuminated by her reasons and no error of principle or substantial injustice had been demonstrated by the appellant. The Full Court ordered that the appellant pay the husband's costs of and incidental to the appeal in SOA 37 of 2012, SOA 42 of 2012 and SOA 26 of 2013. The husband was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal in SOA 71 of 2012.