Woley & Humboldt - [2008] FamCA 699

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WOLEY & HUMBOLDT

[2008] FamCA 699

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Subpoena – application to set aside subpoenae on ground of relevance - whether medical records of husband’s mother relevant to property settlement proceedings – where husband’s mother has legal control of family trusts but her legal capacity disputed – where wife alleges husband has legal control of family trusts – whether assets owned by trusts may be assets or financial resources of the husband – subpoenaed material released for inspection and copying.

Family Law Rules 2004
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 75
Evidence Act 1958 (Vic), s 28(5)(c)
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)

Hatton, VF v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia & Commonwealth Bank of Australia & Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia (2000) FLC 93-038
Stephens and Stephens and Others (2007) FLC 93-336
Ashton and Ashton (1986) FLC 91-777
Sharpe & Dalton (1990) FLC 92-167
Epstein and Epstein (1993) FLC 92-384
White & Tulloch & White (1995) FLC 92-640
Re Z (1996) FLC 92-694
Relationships Australia v Pasternak (1996) FLC 92-699
National Employers' Mutual General Association v Waind and Hill [1978] 1 NSWLR 372
Supreme Court of South Australia in Santos Ltd v. Pipelines Authority of South Australia [1996] 66 SASR 38

APPLICANT:

MS WOLEY

RESPONDENT:

MR HUMBOLDT

FIRST INTERVENOR:

MRS HUMBOLDT

SECOND INTERVENOR:

K PRIVATE HOSPITAL

FILE NUMBER:

MLF

1685

2005

DATE DELIVERED:

19 AUGUST 2008

PLACE DELIVERED:

MELBOURNE

PLACE HEARD:

MELBOURNE

JUDGMENT OF:

BRYANT CJ

HEARING DATE:

18 AUGUST 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:	MR ST JOHN SC
MR STRUM

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

MARSHALLS & DENT

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

MR GEDDES QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:	KENNEDY WISEWOULDS
COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST INTERVENOR	MR JAQUES
SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST INTERVENOR	SIMON JAQUES & CO
COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND INTERVENOR	MR A. ROCKMAN
SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND INTERVENOR	ROCKMAN & ROCKMAN

It is ordered:

That:
(a)       the wife and her lawyers;
(b)       the husband and his lawyers; and
(c)       the lawyers for the husband’s mother;
be entitled to inspect and copy the documents produced to the Court pursuant to the subpoenae issued to:
(i)the Alfred Hospital;
(ii)Professor A;
(iii)Epworth Rehabilitation;
(iv)Cabrini Health; and
(v)K Private Hospital.
That the material in the subpoenaed documents not be released to anyone other than those directly involved in the preparation of the case for the husband and wife respectively.
That the costs of compliance by K Private Hospital, in the amount of $150, be paid by the wife.
That judgment be reserved on the question of the costs of the K Private Hospital to appear to object to the subpoena directed to it.
That by 4.00pm on 28 August 2008 the wife file and serve an amended application setting out with particularity the orders sought by her.
That by 4.00pm on 10 September 2008 the husband file and serve an amended response setting out with particularity the orders sought by him in response to the amended application filed by the…

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 Woley & Humboldt

Details

AGLC: Woley & Humboldt [2008] FamCA 699
Case: [2008] FamCA 699
Decision Date: 19 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this dispute were Woley and Humboldt. The nature of their disagreement and the specific court hearing the matter are not detailed in the provided text.

The central legal issues before the court, as indicated by the presence of Chief Justice Bryant, likely revolved around a matter of significant legal import requiring the highest judicial authority within the relevant jurisdiction. The precise legal questions are not explicitly stated.

Chief Justice Bryant's reasoning and the legal principles applied would have been based on established Australian legal precedent and statutory interpretation relevant to the unresolved dispute between Woley and Humboldt. Without further information on the facts or legal arguments, the specific principles cannot be identified.

The final orders or outcome of the case are not discernible from the provided text.

Orders