FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| WENLACK & CIMORELLI | [2013] FamCA 602 |
| FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – where the wife sought access to material produced to the court by the parties’ marriage counsellor – where the husband raised objection to the inspection of the material produced – where the onus was on the husband to establish that the parties’ marriage counsellor is a family counsellor within the meaning of the Act – where the husband was unable on the evidence to do so – where there is no basis to find that the parties’ marriage counsellor is a family counsellor within the definition of the Act and consequently the prohibition of disclosure contained within s 10D does not apply – where the husband also sought to raise public interest immunity – where it was determined that an immunity against production of the documents for inspection does not apply in this case – Fritze & Fritze & New England Area Health [2006] FamCA 232 applied. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 10B, 10C(1), 10D(1) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s126B Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 135 |
| Unitingcare-Unifam Counselling & Mediation & Harkiss and Anor 2011 FamCAFC 159 Jermyn & Carling [2012] FMCAfam 814 Relationships Australia & Pasternak & Pasternak & Children's Representative (1996) FLC 92-699 Feinster & Feinster and Anor [2006] FamCA 232 |
| APPLICANT: | Mr Wenlack |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Cimorelli |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 2881 | of | 2013 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 13 August 2013 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Justice Aldridge |
| HEARING DATE: | 13 August 2013 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Ms Devere |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Barkus Doolan Kelly |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Ms Clifford |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Watts McCray Lawyers |
Orders
That leave is granted to the legal representatives of the parties to inspect subpoena material produced by Ms B, Clinical Psychologist.
That leave is granted to the legal representatives of the parties to inspect subpoena material produced by C Childcare Services.
That I stand this matter over, before myself for an interim hearing, at 10 am on Friday 16 August 2013.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Wenlack & Cimorelli has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
FILE NUMBER: SYC 2881 of 2013
| Mr Wenlack |
Applicant
And
| Ms Cimorelli |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
These reasons were delivered orally.
The wife has served a subpoena upon Ms B who provided marriage counselling services to the parties. The wife seeks access to the material produced to the court by Ms B and that access is opposed by the husband.
Save for the reference to family counsellor contained in s 10B of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) counsel for the wife accepts that the services provided by Ms B involved a process of her dealing with personal and inter-personal issues in relation to a marriage.
Section 10B describes family counselling as a process…
Continue reading Wenlack and Cimorelli
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Wenlack and Cimorelli [2013] FamCA 602
- Case
- [2013] FamCA 602
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant leave for the legal representatives of the parties to inspect subpoena material produced by Ms B, a Clinical Psychologist, and C Childcare Services.
Justice Aldridge granted leave for the legal representatives of both parties to inspect the subpoena material produced by Ms B and C Childcare Services. The court then stood the matter over for an interim hearing before Justice Aldridge on Friday, 16 August 2013, at 10 am.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That leave is granted to the legal representatives of the parties to inspect subpoena material produced by Ms B, Clinical Psychologist.
2.
That leave is granted to the legal representatives of the parties to inspect subpoena material produced by C Childcare Services.
3.
That I stand this matter over, before myself for an interim hearing, at 10 am on Friday 16 August 2013.
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.