WARREN & HORODECKI

In the matter of *Warren & Horodecki*, Justice Stevenson of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was required to determine the admissibility of certain correspondence between legal representatives of parties engaged in dispute. The husband sought to rely on a letter dated 29 July 2016 from Mills Oakley to Eddy Neumann Lawyers, and a responsive letter dated 2 August 2016 from Eddy Neumann Lawyers to Mills Oakley, as evidence in the proceedings. The wife sought to permanently restrain the husband from continuing with separate proceedings, identified as MLC1510 of 2016.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the letters, which appeared to be part of settlement negotiations, were admissible under the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth), specifically in light of section 131 which generally excludes evidence of settlement negotiations. The husband contended that the letters were admissible pursuant to subsections 131(2)(g) and 131(2)(k) of the Act. The court was therefore tasked with considering whether any of the exceptions to the exclusion of settlement negotiations applied to the correspondence in question.

Justice Stevenson reasoned that the letters were indeed settlement negotiations, as evidenced by their content and the "without prejudice save as to costs" notation. However, the court found that the exception under section 131(2)(g) was applicable. This exception allows for the admission of such evidence if it is likely to mislead the court unless admitted to contradict or qualify other evidence. The court determined that the husband's objective in commencing the Australian proceedings was to compel the wife to make full financial disclosure, and the correspondence directly addressed this objective and the parties' positions regarding disclosure and jurisdiction. The court also considered subsection 131(2)(k), which relates to communications made in furtherance of a deliberate abuse of power, and found it relevant to the context of the dispute.

Consequently, the court ordered that the letter of 29 July 2016 from Mills Oakley to Eddy Neumann Lawyers, together with the letter of 2 August 2016 from Eddy Neumann Lawyers to Mills Oakley, be admitted into evidence as Exhibit 1. Furthermore, the wife was permanently restrained from continuing with the proceedings entitled and numbered MLC1510 of 2016.