Court Grants Access to Documents, Redacting Information to Protect Lady's Privacy
Thukral & Trishna [2019] FamCA 944 (9 December 2019)
This case concerned a review of a Registrar's decision to give the wife's solicitors first access to subpoenaed material in order to protect the wife and child, who were the subject of an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order and an ongoing investigation by the Joint Investigation Response Team. The approach taken by the Registrar was found to be cautious and appropriate, and the application was dismissed.
Facts:
On October 31st, 2019, the Wife's solicitors informed the court that they did not press the objections filed in relation to the subpoenas issued to C Medical Centre, NSW Department of Education, D School, Department of Human Services and B Medical Centre, but did press the objections filed in relation to the subpoenas issued to ANZ Bank, Commonwealth Bank and E Centre. The court then issued orders granting the Wife's legal representatives access to the subpoenaed documents, allowing them to first inspect and photocopy the documents, then redact any information that may identify the Wife's address or whereabouts, or the child's school, before others were granted access to the redacted documents. The original documents, which are unredacted, were to be placed in a separate sealed envelope clearly labeled with the file name and number, and marked "confidential-not to be inspected". Any arguments regarding access to the unredacted documents were adjourned to the first day before the trial judge.
Issue:
The issue is how to protect the lady's privacy while allowing access to documents relevant to the case.
Applicable law:
Family Law Rules 2004 r 17.02A(b) - provides that the copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors.
Analysis:
The Registrar addressed objections to the documents produced by six different entities and allowed the wife's solicitors the opportunity to redact documents to protect the whereabouts of the wife and child. The orders do not dispose of the issue and the ultimate question will be answered by the trial judge. The review application of the orders of 8 October 2019 in regards to the E Centre subpoena will fail, and the Registrar will make an unrestricted order for inspection in regards to the remaining entities. The objection in regards to the ANZ Bank and the Commonwealth Bank is not being addressed.
Conclusion:
The Court allowed the parties to inspect documents produced by the Department of Human Services, NSW Department of Education, B Medical Centre, C Medical Centre and D School, and dismissed the husband's Application in a Case filed on 16 October 2019 which sought a review of the orders made on 8 October 2019 in respect of the inspection of documents produced by E Centre.
Case: THUKRAL & TRISHNA [2019] FamCA 944
Judgment of: Loughnan J