Wellington & Wellington (No 2) - [2025] FedCFamC1F 338

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Wellington & Wellington (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 338

File number(s): NCC 2095 of 2024

Judgment of: ALTOBELLI J

Date of judgment: 24 April 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURE – Subpoena Objection – Where the Applicant opposes the disclosure of financial information dating back to 2019 – Where the Respondent is concerned by material misinformation contained within the Applicant’s filed Financial Statement – Where the documents produced will likely surpass the low bar for relevance under section 55 the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – Where the Court dismisses the Applicant’s subpoena objections – Where the Respondent seeks costs – Where the Applicant is ordered to pay costs fixed in the sum of $2000.

Legislation:
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 55

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117(2)(A)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)

Cases cited: Boulton & Boulton (2024) FLC 94-202; [2024] FedCFamC1A 132

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 14

Date of hearing: 24 April 2025

Place: Sydney

Solicitor for the Applicant: Dr Oweye of Layebs Law

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Hackney of Delaney Roberts Family Lawyers

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Appearance excused
ORDERS

NCC 2095 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MR WELLINGTON

Applicant

AND:
MS WELLINGTON

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

ALTOBELLI J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Objections dismissed
1.The Notices of Objection – Subpoena filed on 7 April 2025 by the Husband relating to National Australia Bank and F Pty Ltd are hereby dismissed.

Costs
2.The Husband is hereby directed to pay the costs of the Wife in the fixed amount of $2,000, and such payment is to come out of his final share of any settlement or order made pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), with such sum to become payable at the time any final orders are implemented.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.The solicitor for the Husband provided an oral undertaking to the Court today, which states that he will not charge the Husband more than $2,000 for all work relating to the subpoena objections for the National Australia Bank and F Pty Ltd.

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…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Wellington & Wellington (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Wellington & Wellington (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 338
Case: [2025] FedCFamC1F 338
Decision Date: 24 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Wellington opposed the disclosure of financial information dating back to 2019, which had been sought by Ms Wellington in their ongoing family law proceedings. Ms Wellington raised concerns about potential misinformation contained within Mr Wellington’s filed Financial Statement and sought clarification through the production of documents. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) was tasked with resolving the objections to the subpoenas issued for financial information from National Australia Bank and F Pty Ltd.

The central legal issue was whether the Applicant's objections to the subpoenas were valid, particularly given the relevance of the requested financial documents under section 55 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The court considered the potential for material misinformation in the Applicant's Financial Statement and whether the documents sought were necessary to clarify the financial position of the parties. The court concluded that the relevance of the documents likely surpassed the low threshold set by the Evidence Act, and therefore, the objections were not well-founded.

In its reasoning, the court dismissed Mr Wellington's objections to the subpoenas, finding that the relevance and necessity of the financial documents outweighed any privacy concerns. The court also noted the oral undertaking by Mr Wellington's solicitor that the costs related to the subpoena objections would not exceed $2,000. Consequently, the court ordered Mr Wellington to pay Ms Wellington $2,000 in costs, to be deducted from his final share of any settlement or order made under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). This amount is to be paid at the time any final orders are implemented.

Orders

Orders of the court

NCC 2095 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MR WELLINGTON

Applicant

AND:

MS WELLINGTON

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

ALTOBELLI J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Objections dismissed

1. The Notices of Objection – Subpoena filed on 7 April 2025 by the Husband relating to National Australia Bank and F Pty Ltd are hereby dismissed.

Costs

2. The Husband is hereby directed to pay the costs of the Wife in the fixed amount of $2,000, and such payment is to come out of his final share of any settlement or order made pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), with such sum to become payable at the time any final orders are implemented.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

A. The solicitor for the Husband provided an oral undertaking to the Court today, which states that he will not charge the Husband more than $2,000 for all work relating to the subpoena objections for the National Australia Bank and F Pty Ltd.

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.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	NCC 2095 of 2024
Judgment of:	ALTOBELLI J
Date of judgment:	24 April 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURE – Subpoena Objection – Where the Applicant opposes the disclosure of financial information dating back to 2019 – Where the Respondent is concerned by material misinformation contained within the Applicant’s filed Financial Statement – Where the documents produced will likely surpass the low bar for relevance under section 55 the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – Where the Court dismisses the Applicant’s subpoena objections – Where the Respondent seeks costs – Where the Applicant is ordered to pay costs fixed in the sum of $2000.
Legislation:	Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 55 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117(2)(A) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)
Cases cited:	Boulton & Boulton (2024) FLC 94-202; [2024] FedCFamC1A 132
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	14
Date of hearing:	24 April 2025
Place:	Sydney
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Dr Oweye of Layebs Law
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms Hackney of Delaney Roberts Family Lawyers
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Appearance excused

NCC 2095 of 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MR WELLINGTON Applicant
AND:	MS WELLINGTON Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	ALTOBELLI J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 APRIL 2025