Venter & Venter

[2024] FedCFamC1F 523

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
FIRST INSTANCE

Venter & Venter [2024] FedCFamC1F 523

File number:

BRC 7462 of 2024

Judgment of:

CAREW J

Date of judgment:

6 August 2024

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Oral applications by the wife and a non-party respondent to adjourn the hearing of an urgent application by the husband – Consideration of whether an adjournment is necessary to do justice between the parties – Applications dismissed.  

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Urgent application by the husband seeking for procedural changes to the hearing of his and the other respondents’ costs applications, leave to issue subpoena, and production certain documents by the non-party respondents – Where the hearing of the costs applications is extended to a second day – Where parties that have been given notice that they will be required for cross-examination will be required to appear in person – Where leave to issue a subpoena for the giving of evidence but not the production of documents is granted – Where production of a certain document is required – Application otherwise dismissed.   

Legislation:

 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 67

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia(Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 6.27, 6.29

Cases cited:

Mertens & Mertens [2016] FamCAFC 136

Venter & Venter (No 5) [2023] FedCFamC1F 635

Venter & Venter (No 6) [2024] FedCFamC1F 94

Number of paragraphs:

53

Date of hearing:

5 August 2024

Place:

Brisbane

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Ms Sergi as solicitor advocate, Kalus Kenny Intelex

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Mr Kelly KC with Dr Smith

Solicitor for the First Respondent:

Broun Abrahams Burreket

Counsel for the Second, Third, Fifth and Seventh Respondents:

Mr Stewart KC with Mr Barnett

Solicitor for the Second, Third, Fifth and Seventh Respondents:

Mangioni Biggs & Co

The Fourth Respondent:

Did not participate

Solicitor for the Non-Party Respondent, Mr P:

Mr Tuohey as solicitor advocate, Colin Biggers & Paisley

Solicitor for the Non-Party Respondent, GG Lawyers

Mr Castley as solicitor advocate, Hall & Wilcox

ORDER

BRC 7462 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS VENTER

Applicant

AND:

MR VENTER

First Respondent

MR B VENTER

Second Respondent

MR C VENTER (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

MR P

Non-Party Respondent

GG LAWYERS

Non-Party Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	CAREW J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 AUGUST 2024

ORDER MADE BY THE COURT ON 5 AUGUST 2024

1.That the oral application by Ms Venter (“the wife”) and by Mr P for an adjournment of the Amended Application in a Proceeding filed by Mr Venter (“the husband”) on 2 August 2024, or part thereof, be dismissed.  

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The hearing of the Applications in a Proceeding for costs filed by the husband and the second, third, fifth, and seventh respondents on 28 March 2024, currently listed for hearing for one day on 16 August 2024 is listed to commence at not before 11:00 am on 15 August 2024 for no more than two days. 

2.Any party or legal representative not located in Brisbane has leave to appear at the hearing on 15 and 16 August 2024 by Microsoft Teams video.

3.The two non-party respondents, Mr P and Ms AL of GG Lawyers, are to attend the hearing in person as notice has been provided by the husband that they are required for cross-examination.

4.The husband has leave to issue a subpoena to Mr AK of MM Lawyers to give evidence at the hearing commencing on 15 August 2024.

5.In the event that any party presses for leave pursuant to r 8.04 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021, to adduce evidence orally from Mr AK at the costs hearing commencing on 15 August 2024, any such application be filed by no later than 4:00pm on 13 August 2024 and listed for hearing on 15 August 2024.

6.Mr P forthwith produce to the solicitors for the second, third, fifth, and seventh respondents a copy of the email dated 5 October 2021 referred to by Mr P in annexure P-13 to his affidavit sworn on 11 December 2023 and filed on 13 December 2023.

7.The husband’s Amended Application in a Proceeding filed 2 August 2024 is otherwise dismissed.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CAREW J:

1. The substantive proceedings involve a contested property settlement application by Ms Venter (“the wife”) against Mr  Venter (“the husband”) to which their three adult children, Mr B Venter, Mr C Venter, and Ms Glynn have been joined as parties, as well as two entities, D Group Holdings Family Pty Ltd as trustee for the D Group Holdings Discretionary Trust (“the trust”) and R Pty Ltd. Ms Glynn has taken no part in the proceedings.

2. After an aborted trial in mid-2023, substantially due to the wife’s late disclosure of thousands of documents, I restrained the wife on 28 February 2024 from engaging or instructing her then legal practitioners or her previous legal practitioners, substantially because of their review of material subject to legal professional privilege and the shambolic nature of the wife’s disclosure generally.

3. The husband, by an application filed 28 March 2024, seeks costs against the wife’s then solicitors, GG Lawyers, and the wife’s then counsel, Mr P, jointly and severally, or in such proportion as the Court determines, on an indemnity basis or alternatively on a party and party basis. In the alternative, the husband seeks costs against the wife.

4. Mr B Venter, Mr C Venter, the trust, and R Pty Ltd likewise seek costs on a similar basis.

5. On 5 June 2024, the costs applications were set down for hearing on 16 August 2024, it being anticipated that the matter would proceed by way of submissions only.

   THE HUSBAND’S URGENT APPLICATION

6. On 30 July 2024, the husband filed an urgent application seeking: to extend the hearing to two days commencing on 15 August 2024 (when another application relating to some of the same parties is already listed); for the hearing to proceed in person rather than by Microsoft Teams video; for leave to issue subpoena; and for Mr P to produce a copy of an email dated 5 October 2021.

7. The husband’s application was set down for hearing on 5 August 2024 on condition that it was served by 4.00pm on 31 July 2024. That condition was met.

8. On 2 August 2024, the husband filed an amended application which expanded the documents sought for Mr P to produce and in addition sought the production of documents from GG Lawyers.

9. The wife has retained new lawyers who filed a Notice of Address for Service on 2 August 2024.

   THE APPLICATION TO ADJOURN THE HUSBAND’S AMENDED APPLICATION

10. The oral applications by the wife and Mr P to adjourn the husband’s urgent amended application (which were supported by GG Lawyers but opposed by the husband, and the other parties to the proceedings) were dismissed with reasons reserved. The reasons are set out below.

11. In ordinary circumstances, it might reasonably be anticipated that if a respondent to an application only receives late notice of an application that they should have time to properly consider their position. However, while the discretion to grant an adjournment is wide, it is not unfettered.[1]

    [1] See Mertens & Mertens [2016] FamCAFC 136 at [3].

12. The fundamental consideration is whether the adjournment is necessary to do justice as between the parties. Factors that will inform the discretion include the following:

    (a)The reasons for the adjournment;

    (b)Any prejudice or disadvantage to the other parties that cannot be compensated by way of orders for costs; and

    (c)The effect of an adjournment on the orderly case management of other cases in the Court and the impact on other litigants.

13. Additionally, s 67 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), imposes an overarching purpose on this Court to facilitate the just resolution of disputes as quickly, inexpensively, and efficiently as possible including by:

    (a)The efficient use of the judicial resources available;

    (b)The efficient disposal of the Court’s overall caseload;

    (c)The disposal of proceedings in a timely manner; and

    (d)The resolution of disputes at a cost that is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the matters in dispute.

    The wife’s application for an adjournment

14. Apart from setting aside leave previously granted to appear at the costs hearing by video link, the relief sought by the husband in his amended application is not directed to the wife.

15. If the hearing of the costs application is listed to the 15 August 2024 in addition to 16 August 2024, that will not impact the wife’s Application for Review (relating to an order that she pay the costs of production of documents from two unrelated parties, and not the husband) which is listed for hearing on 15 August 2024, as it will proceed first (unless there is agreement between the wife and the other parties concerned with that application to adjourn). I was informed that the other parties to that review do not object to an adjournment but that is a matter about which the wife will need to take advice. Of course, it may be that an adjournment will not be granted in circumstances where the wife has failed to comply with the procedural directions made on 5 June 2024 to file any further material she intended to rely on by 26 June 2024 and written submissions by 24 July 2024.

16. In relation to documents sought to be produced by the husband from GG Lawyers and/or Mr P, any objection to production arising from a claim to legal professional privilege will be made in the first instance by GG Lawyers and/or Mr P. Mr P has already placed evidence before the Court that he sought the wife’s consent to waive her privilege and it was declined. The wife might have cause to further consider her position upon the receipt of further legal advice but, in any event, the proposed relief sought by the husband provided a procedure to address any claim for privilege.

17. An adjournment of the husband’s urgent application will put the hearing date of the costs applications at risk.

18. Further, an important consideration is that unless the wife is successful in her substantive application, there is no prospect of her meeting a costs order.

19. Accordingly, the wife’s application for an adjournment was dismissed.

    Mr P’s application for an adjournment

20. As I understand Mr P’s position, his application for adjournment related only to the additional relief sought in the amended urgent application. However, the additional relief, which sought the production of additional material, was substantially the subject of a letter to Mr P on 19 July 2024. On 1 August 2024, Mr P declined the request. He has been on notice since on or about 19 July 2024 that production of documents was a live issue.

21. I was not persuaded that Mr P would suffer any prejudice to the amended application proceeding.

22. Accordingly, Mr P’s application to adjourn the hearing of the amended application filed 2 August 2024 was dismissed.

    SHOULD THE COSTS APPLICATIONS BE LISTED FOR HEARING ON 15 AUGUST 2024 IN ADDITION TO 16 AUGUST 2024?

23. Even if the wife’s review application proceeds on 15 August 2024, it seems likely that at least a good portion of 15 August 2024 will be available to hear the costs applications. In those circumstances, I propose to list the costs hearing to commence at not before 11:00am on 15 August 2024.

    SHOULD ALL PARTIES BE REQUIRED TO APPEAR IN PERSON?

24. On 17 July 2024, all parties who wished to do so had leave to appear by video link at the hearing of the costs applications. The husband seeks to have that leave revoked and require all parties to appear in person.

25. I am not entirely sure why that would be necessary, at least in relation to some parties, although it would certainly be my preference.

26. There is no suggestion that the wife will be required for cross-examination and her recently retained lawyers are based in Melbourne. It seems to be an unnecessary burden to require the wife and/or her lawyers to appear in person. They will continue to have leave to appear by Microsoft Teams video.

27. The husband’s solicitors are based in Sydney. I see no reason to require them to appear in person when the husband will be represented by Mr Kelly KC who is based in Brisbane and will be appearing in person. Mr Kelly KC’s junior, Dr Smith, is based in Melbourne. I see no reason to require Dr Smith to appear in person. That is a matter for the husband.

28. Mr Stewart KC represents Mr B Venter, Mr C Venter, the trust, and R Pty Ltd and he is based in Brisbane and will be appearing in person. Mr Stewart KC’s junior, Mr Barnett, is based in Sydney as are the instructing solicitors. I see no reason to require Mr Barnett or the solicitors to appear in person. That will be a matter for their clients.

29. Mr P has retained Mr De Jersey KC to represent him at the costs hearing and he is based in Brisbane. I expect him to appear in person, but I see no reason to require Mr De Jersey KC’s junior (if he has one) or his instructing solicitors, who are based in Melbourne, to appear in person. Mr P has already been put on notice that he is required for cross-examination, and he has agreed to appear in Brisbane in person and that should occur given that findings of credit are sought against him.

30. Ms AL, from GG Lawyers, is on notice that she too will be required for cross-examination. Ms AL is based in Melbourne. It is submitted on her behalf that she should be permitted to give evidence by video link. Unfortunately, and despite the additional costs that this will incur, I consider it necessary for Ms AL to appear in person, given the nature of the findings sought against her. GG Lawyers’ solicitor is based in Brisbane, and he appeared before me on 5 August 2024. Mr Jones KC prepared a written outline and presumably will be representing GG Lawyers on the costs hearing. Mr Jones KC is based in Brisbane. I expect those practitioners to appear in person.

    SHOULD THE HUSBAND BE GRANTED LEAVE TO ISSUE SUBPOENA?

31. The husband seeks leave to issue a subpoena for production of documents to MM Lawyers and Mr AK and a subpoena to give evidence to Mr AK, of MM Lawyers, at the costs application hearing.

32. Leave is required pursuant to r 6.27(2) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia(Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”). Rule 6.29 provides that, unless the Court otherwise directs, a subpoena requiring attendance must be served at least seven days before the attendance under the subpoena is required and a subpoena requiring production must be served at least 10 days before production under the subpoena is required. The time for service of a subpoena to produce documents would need to be abridged. Rule 6.29 also provides that a subpoena requiring production only must be made returnable no later than three days before any court event to which the subpoena relates, unless otherwise ordered.

33. The proposed subpoena to MM Lawyers to produce documents is in the following terms:

    2. All fee notes, including itemised invoices or bill narrations, received from [Mr P] in relation to work undertaken by him on behalf of [Ms Venter] in proceedings No BRC1065/2021 (the proceedings) in the period from September 2021 to date.

    3. All fee notes, including itemised invoices or bill narrations, prepared by [MM Lawyers] in relation to work undertaken on behalf of [Ms Venter] in the Proceedings in the period from 28 May 2020 to date.

    4. A copy of the email sent from [Mr AK] to [Mr P] on 5 October 2021 listing the attached files but excluding any such attachments (the 5 October 2021 email).

    5. Copies of all emails and/or email chains received or sent in reply by [Mr P] to the 5 October 2021 email.

    6. A copy of the email sent from [Mr AK] to [Mr P] at 11:45am on 11 October 2021 bearing the subject line “[Ms Venter] – more good email evidence regarding [Mr Venter’s] control” listing the attached files but excluding any such attachments (the 11 October 2021 email).

    7. Copies of all emails and/or email chains received or sent in reply to the 11 October 2021 email by [Mr P].

    8. Copies of all documents including but not limited to records, notes, time entries, emails, text messages, letters, briefs and/or file notes recording communications in writing and/or verbally between any person in the employ of [MM Lawyers] (including but not limited to [Mr AU] and/or [Mr AK]) and [Mr P] and/or any person in the employ of [GG Lawyers] (including but not limited to [Ms AV], [Ms AL], [Ms AM] and/or [Ms AW]) attaching or with respect to:

    8.1      the 5 October 2021 email and/or any the attachments thereto;

    8.2      the 11 October 2021 email and/or any of the attachments thereto;

    8.3 the chain of emails dated 14, 21 and 23 December 2012 between [Mr UU] of [VV Lawyers] and [Mr Venter], [Mr B Venter], [Mr J] and [Mr HH] bearing the subject line “Re_Asset Protection & Restructuring;

    8.4 The audio recording labelled “lagers after ASIC met [Mr HH] – [Mr AP] & [Mr AR]”;

    8.5      The audio recording labelled “[Mr UU] and Barrister”;

    8.6 The email sent from [Mr J] to ‘[Venters]’ …@... bearing the subject line “do attached” at 1:44pm on 20 May 2024;

    8.7 The document attached to the email referred to at paragraph 8.6 bearing the title “Agreement” between [Mr AB] and [EE Pty Ltd Family Trust] ([EE Pty Ltd] as trustee);

    8.8 The email sent from [Mr J] to ‘[Venters] …@... bearing the subject line “doc attached mark 2” at 5:10pm on 20 May 2024; and/or

    8.9 The document attached to the email referred to at paragraph 8.8 bearing the title “Agreement” between [Mr AB], of [AX Street, Suburb AY] and [EE Pty Ltd] Family Trust ([EE Pty Ltd] as trustee).

    9. Any document evidencing the sending of the audio recordings referred to in 8.4 and 8.5 above to [Mr P].

    10. Any telephone records (whether from a landline phone at work or mobile phones of any employee of [MM Lawyers] including [Mr AK]) of the time and duration of phone calls between any employee of [MM Lawyers] and [Mr P] in the period October 2021 to December 2021.

34. The proposed subpoena to Mr AK to produce documents is for any phone records recording phone calls and/or text messages between Mr P and Mr AK in the period from 1 October 2021 to 31 December 2021.

35. No submissions were made to explain the delay in bringing the application for leave. There is no evidence that if time is abridged, MM Lawyers or Mr AK will be able to comply with the subpoena. I am not persuaded that leave to issue subpoena for the production of documents should be granted.

36. I will grant leave to issue a subpoena to Mr AK to give evidence at the costs hearing on 15 August 2024 but any application for him to give oral evidence pursuant to r 8.04 will have to be made by no later than 4:00pm on 13 August 2024, to be listed for hearing on 15 August 2024. I expect the husband’s solicitors to liaise with Mr AK to ensure that his attendance at Court is only for any time that is actually necessary.

    SHOULD MR P BE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE A COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 5 OCTOBER 2021?

1. By his initial application, the husband sought only the production by Mr P of an email sent to him by Mr AK of MM Lawyers. By his amended application, he continues to seek the production of this document. The document is an email referred to in annexure P-13 to Mr P’s affidavit filed 13 December 2023 and relied upon by him in resisting an order for costs. As it is a document referred to in his affidavit, it should be produced.

   SHOULD MR P AND GG LAWYERS BE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS SPECIFIED IN THE ANNEXURES TO THE APPLICATION?

2. The husband, by his amended application, seeks the production of a vast array of documents, some of which are conceded to be likely subject to a claim for legal professional privilege. Many of the documents sought to be produced were initially requested by the husband in a letter to Mr P and GG Lawyers dated 19 July 2024.

3. Mr B Venter, Mr C Venter, the trust, and R Pty Ltd support the husband’s amended application.

4. The production of the documents is resisted by Mr P and GG Lawyers.

5. In a letter from Mr P to the husband dated 26 July 2024, he declined to produce the documents requested in the letter dated 19 July 2024 for the following reasons:

   (a)The obligation to provide disclosure pursuant to the Rules does not extend to non-parties who are responding to a costs application;

   (b)Mr P is not otherwise subject to disclosure obligations; and/or

   (c)Even if there is an obligation to make disclosure, all of the documents requested are subject to at least an arguable claim for privilege by the wife.  

6. Mr P also objected to the production of the email dated 5 October 2021.

7. In a letter from GG Lawyers to the husband dated 1 August 2024, the request for production of documents was resisted on several bases including the following:

   (a)The husband did not seek an order for disclosure on 5 June 2024 when the costs applications were listed for hearing;

   (b)The request for disclosure is extensive, late, and would render a hearing of the costs application on 16 August 2024 impossible;

   (c)The wide ranging nature of the disclosure is unnecessary and unnecessarily costly;

   (d)Many of the documents will be subject to claims of legal professional privilege and likely disputed claims about whether privilege applies and/or has been waived; and/or

   (e)There is no proper basis for GG Lawyers to produce any documents.

8. Mr P adopted the submissions made by GG Lawyers.

9. In accordance with the procedural directions made on 5 June 2024, the husband has filed his submissions in support of his costs application. Likewise, Mr B Venter, Mr C Venter, the trust, and R Pty Ltd have filed their submissions.

10. Although costs on an indemnity basis are sought against Mr P and GG Lawyers, it is conceded by the husband that it is not necessary for the Court to find that Mr P and/or Ms AL “were dishonest in their conduct of the proceedings and in their dealings with the court and their opponents. It is enough that their conduct was improper or unreasonable, or that they behaved, as they did, with a cavalier recklessness in relation to their professional duties… ”.

11. The husband will nevertheless seek a finding that Mr P’s conduct “involved dishonesty” and that this was not “an isolated instance”. It will be submitted by the husband that Mr P’s affidavit “conceals more than reveals”. What is referred to by the husband as “the essence of the misconduct of the legal practitioners, and the mishandling of the case, leading to the waste of costs can be readily seen from the documents that are not privileged and by reference to the chronology of events”. The husband will also rely upon findings made in a previous judgments involving the parties in the substantive proceedings.[2]

    [2] Venter & Venter (No 5) [2023] FedCFamC1F 635; Venter & Venter (No 6) [2024] FedCFamC1F 94.

12. The husband will further submit that the conduct of both Mr P and GG Lawyers “[i]nvolved a lack of honest and candid behaviour when confronted with sensitive documents and a failure to provide, even on this application, a frank and candid explanation for their conduct”.

13. The husband seeks that Mr P produce the following documents:

    (a)Fee notes in relation to work undertaken on behalf of the wife during the period September 2021 to December 2023;

    (b)Copies of all correspondence between Mr P and any legal practitioner in which he describes the scope or breadth of the work undertaken or being undertaken by him while briefed to appear on behalf of the wife in the proceedings during the same period;

    (c)Any notes by Mr P or documents in relation to the receipt by him, acknowledgment of receipt by him, reading or reviewing by him of the folder entitled “[Mr AK] send emails” and the subfolder “New emails [Venter] sent to [Mr P] 11.10.21” and documents included therein (referred to collectively as “[Mr AK] send emails folder”);

    (d)Any notes by Mr P or documents which record the opening or reading or consideration by him in relation to the Mr AK send emails folder;

    (e)Any documents recording the awareness of Mr P of the inadequacy of disclosure by the wife, the fact that contentious documents had been read by solicitors or counsel which later became the subject of controversy, or the lateness of disclosure, leading up to the trial commencing on 24 July 2023;

    (f)Any documents recording any discussion involving or within the knowledge of Mr P in relation to the inadequacy of disclosure by the wife, or the lateness of disclosure; and

    (g)Any phone records recording phone calls between:

    (i)Mr P and Mr AK in October 2021 to December 2021;

    (ii)Mr P and any other person working as a legal representative for the wife in that period; and

    (iii)Mr P and the wife at any time between 2020 and December 2023.

14. The husband seeks that GG Lawyers produce the following documents:

    (a)Fee notes from Mr P;

    (b)Fee notes issued by GG Lawyers to the wife between March 2023 and March 2024;

    (c)Copies of correspondence exchanged between GG Lawyers and Mr P in which Mr P describes the scope or breadth of the work undertaken or being undertaken while briefed to appear on behalf of the wife in the period March 2023 to December 2023;

    (d)Any notes or documents in relation to any record that GG Lawyers had brought to the attention of Mr P any document in the "[Mr AK] send emails folder");

    (i)Any notes of GG Lawyers or documents of any kind which record the consideration by Mr P or comments by him evidencing that he had read any document in relation to the Mr AK send emails folder;

    (ii)Any documents recording the awareness of GG Lawyers of the inadequacy of disclosure by the wife, the fact that contentious documents had been read by solicitors or counsel which later became the subject of controversy, or the lateness of disclosure, leading up to the trial commencing on 24 July 2023, including but not limited to communications between GG Lawyers and Mr P and/or MM Lawyers; and

    (iii)Any documents recording any discussion with or knowledge of Mr P in relation to the inadequacy of disclosure by the wife or the lateness of disclosure, leading up to the trial commencing on 24 July 2023.

15. I do not propose to order the production of the documents sought, primarily because I consider it likely that further applications will then follow which will likely jeopardise the finalisation of the costs applications on 16 August 2024. I am also mindful of the obligations of meeting the overarching purpose of litigation in this Court mentioned earlier in these Reasons. Further, it seems to me that the husband’s costs application is unlikely to be prejudiced by a dismissal of his application to produce the documents having regard to the submissions already made in support of his application.

16. In dismissing the application for disclosure, I make no determination as to whether Mr P and GG Lawyers have obligations to disclose the documents without an order or whether any of the documents sought are likely to be subject to legal professional privilege.   

    DISPOSITION

17. The hearing of the costs applications will commence at not before 11:00am on 15 August 2023. Parties and legal representatives who are not located in Brisbane will have leave to appear at the costs hearing by Microsoft Teams video. The non-party respondents, Mr P and Ms AL, will attend the hearing in person as notice has been given that they are required for cross‑examination. The husband will have leave to issue a subpoena to give evidence to Mr AK. Mr P will be required to produce the email dated 5 October 2021. The husband’s Amended Application in a Proceeding filed 2 August 2024 will otherwise be dismissed.   

I certify that the preceding fifty-three (53) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Carew.

Associate:

Dated:       6 August 2024

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

BRC 7462 of 2024
Respondents
Fourth Respondent:	MS GLYNN
Fifth Respondent:	D GROUP HOLDINGS FAMILY PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE D GROUP HOLDINGS DISCRETIONARY TRUST
Seventh Respondent:	R PTY LTD