Walters and Walters and Anor (No. 2)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WALTERS & WALTERS AND ANOR (NO. 2) [2017] FamCA 832

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA – Where application for costs as against a third party objector to a subpoena for production issued by the wife – Where objection was previously dismissed – Where consideration of general principles – Where proper for order for costs to be made.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117

Hawkins & Roe [2012] FamCAFC 77
Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311
Walters & Walters and Anor [2017] FamCA 502.

APPLICANT: Mr Walters

RESPONDENT: Ms Walters

INTERVENOR: B Pty Ltd

FILE NUMBER: DUC 420 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 19 September 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Foster J

HEARING DATE: By way of written submissions last received on 29 August 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Givney

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: McPhee Kelshaw

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Lethbridge SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Campbell Paton & Taylor

COUNSEL FOR THE INTERVENOR: Mr Maddox

SOLICITOR FOR THE INTERVENOR: Baldock Stacy & Niven Pty Ltd

Orders

1. That B Pty Ltd pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to proceedings relating to that company’s objection to the wife’s subpoena for production of documents.

2. That such cost be as agreed within one month from this date and in default of agreement as assessed.

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

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Walters & Walters and Anor (No. 2) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: DUC 420  of 2014

Mr Walters

Applicant

And

Ms Walters

Respondent

B Pty Limited
Intervenor

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The discrete application for determination arises from orders made on 17 July 2017.

2. Those orders were as follows:

   (1)That the Notice of Objection to Subpoena filed 2 March 2017 be dismissed.

   (2)That the application for costs of compliance with the subpoena be dismissed.

   (3)That any application for costs of the objection hearing be made by way of written submission filed and served within 28 days from this date with any submissions in response to be filed and served within a further 14 days, thereafter judgment reserved to chambers.

3. The wife now makes application for an order for costs as against the objector company.

4. The notice of objection to subpoena for production of documents was lodged by B Pty Ltd. That company’s relationship with the proceedings is set out in the earlier reasons for judgment referred to below. The subpoena sought production of…