Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T20:52:10.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Importance of Full and Frank Disclosure in Family Law Financial Proceedings and the Many Consequences of Non-Disclosure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Hugh P K Kopsen  and
Robyn Carroll
Hugh P K Kopsen
Affiliation:
Criminal Law Division, Legal Aid WA.(The views expressed by this author do not necessarily represent the views of Legal Aid WA)
Robyn Carroll
Affiliation:
University of Western Australia Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the duty of full and frank disclosure of parties to family law financial proceedings in Australia, and the potential consequences of failure to comply with this fundamental obligation. The duty is briefly compared and contrasted with disclosure requirements in civil litigation and criminal proceedings to demonstrate the uniqueness of the family law position. The rationale and content of the duty is considered in light of recent cases including the High Court decisions of Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108 and Hall v Hall (2016) 257 CLR 490. The article presents a three-pronged taxonomy of the consequences of non-compliance with the duty, namely evidential, procedural, and final orders/related consequences. We conclude that the absolute nature of the duty and the comprehensive nature of the potential consequences of failure to make full disclosure mean that parties and legal practitioners do so at their peril.

Type
Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 97 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article is a revised version of a paper presented to the Family Law Practitioners’ Association of Western Australia on 30 August 2016. The authors would like to acknowledge David Mottolini for contributing insights to aspects of this paper and to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their comments.

References

1 Trial of the Seven Bishops (1688) 12 St Tr 183, 310 (Wright CJ).

2 Livesey (formerly Jenkins) v Jenkins [1985] AC 424, 437–8, 443, 445 (Lord Brandon) (‘Livesey’); Sharland v Sharland [2016] AC 871, 881–2 [21]–[22] (Baroness Hale DP).

3 In the Marriage of Briese (1985) 82 FLR 369, 370 (Smithers J); Oriolo v Oriolo (1985) 10 Fam LR 665, 666–7 (Emery, Fogarty and Murray JJ); In Marriage of Black (1992) 106 FLR 154, 159 (Nicholson CJ).

4 ‘Financial matters’ is defined in s 4 of the Act . Financial matters include: spousal maintenance (ss 74, 90SF(1) and modification of spousal maintenance orders in ss 83, 90SI); declarations of interests in property (ss 78, 90SL); alteration of interests in property (ss 79, 90SM); setting aside property orders (ss 79A, 90SN); and transactions to defeat claims (s 106B).

5 Rules rr 1.08(1)(b), 13.01, 13.04; FCC Rules r 24.03.

6 Sadek v Hall (2015) 53 Fam LR 187, 194 [25] (Thackray, Strickland and Aldridge JJ).

7 Rules r 13.01(1); Carmel-Fevia v Fevia (2010) 43 Fam LR 405, 407–8 [1]–[5] (Cronin J); Moore v Moore [2014] FLC 93–595, 79 358 [221], 79 359 [223] (Bryant CJ, Finn and Thackray JJ).

8 Australian Law Reform Commission, Managing Discovery: Discovery of Documents in Federal Courts, Report No 115 (2011) 130 [5.140].

9 Another important but different concern, beyond the scope of this article, is that parties and their lawyers will sometimes seek disclosure unnecessarily. Requiring disclosure of information or documents without sufficient justification of its relevance to the issues between the parties can prolong the litigation (and settlement) process, unduly burden the party from whom disclosure is sought, and defeat the purposes of the Rules and FCC Rules . ‘Reasonableness’ and ‘proportionality’ are touchstones of disclosure requirements under these rules, for example. For discussion see Reilly v Reilly [No 2] [2016] FCCA 1706 (24 February 2016) [99]–[103], [109] (Judge Harman). For a more general discussion of disclosure in civil proceedings and pre-action proceedings see Tania, Sourdin, ‘Civil Dispute Resolution Obligations: What Is Reasonable?’ (2012) 35 University of New South Wales Law Journal 889Google Scholar.

10 For suggested ways to combat non-disclosure see Ian, Serisier and Tom, Altobelli, Practising Family Law (3rd edition, LexisNexis, 2012) 218–29Google Scholar [16.6]–[16.25].

11 Emma Smallwood, ‘Stepping Stones: Legal Barriers to Economic Equality after Family Violence’ (Report on the Stepping Stones Project, Women's Legal Service Victoria, September 2015).

12 Judge, Joe Harman, ‘Should Mediation Be the First Step in All Family Law Act Proceedings?’ (2016) 27 Australian Dispute Resolution Journal 17, 48Google Scholar. Appropriately, his Honour would make this requirement subject to exemptions. Note the pre-action procedures that apply under the Rules to proceedings in the Family Court of Australia and the Family Court of Western Australia do not apply in the Federal Circuit Court: see Thompson v Berg (2014) 51 Fam LR 247, 254 [42] (May, Ainslie-Wallace and Ryan JJ). Judge Harman has referred to this as ‘regrettable’ and impeding the informal resolution of proceedings commenced in the Federal Circuit Court, see Reilly v Reilly [No 2] [2016] FCCA 1706 (24 February 2016) [28]–[31].

13 Rules ch 26B.

14 Australian Law Reform Commission, above n 8, 131 [5.141].

15 Ibid.

16 See, eg, Stephen, O’Ryan, ‘Attempts to Deal with Undisclosed Wealth in Property Settlement Proceedings’ (1994) 8 Australian Journal of Family Law 96Google Scholar; David, Jenkin, ‘The Obligation to Disclose—And What if You Don’t?’ (2011) 21(3) Australian Family Lawyer 20Google Scholar; Michael Emerson, Disclosure, Hidden Assets and Working with Accountants to Locate Them (16 March 2012) Emerson Family Law <http://emfl.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Paper.pdf>; Alison Ross and Sydney Williams, Disclosure in Family Law Cases—Getting It Right (19 July 2013) Queensland Law Society <http://www.qls.com.au/files/af5954a0-b26d-4846-8971-a43a00c2a21a/A_Ross_S_Williams_Disclosure_in_Family_Law_Cases_-_Getting_It_Right_-_Family_Law_Residential_19_July_2013.pdf>; Yitshak, Cohen, ‘The Issue of Document Disclosure in General Courts and in Family Courts: A New Model’ (2015) 37 Houston Journal of International Law 43Google Scholar.

17 (2012) 247 CLR 108.

18 (2016) 257 CLR 490.

19 Ray, Finkelstein and David, Hamer (eds), LexisNexis Concise Australian Legal Dictionary (5th ed, LexisNexis, 2015) 191Google Scholar.

20 Australian Law Reform Commission, above n 8, 43–4 [1.67].

21 Ibid 44 [1.67].

22 Note to Rules r 13.01.

23 Sharland v Sharland [2016] AC 871, 883 [27] (Baroness Hale DP).

24 In the Marriage of Briese (1985) 82 FLR 369, 370 (Smithers J). See also Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 303, 319 [43] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ); Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 375, 387 [34] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ).

25 See Kent Coal Concessions Ltd v Duguid [1910] 1 KB 904, 910 (Vaughan Williams LJ); Youlden Enterprises Pty Ltd v Health Solutions (WA) Pty Ltd [2005] WASC 60 (19 April 2005) [6] (Master Newnes). Cf Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 211(1); Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) rr 136(1), 140(1); Supreme Court Rules (NT) r 29.02.

26 Chief Justice, J J Spigelman, ‘Truth and the Law’ (2011) 85 Australian Law Journal 746, 752Google Scholar.

27 See, eg, Access to Justice, Taskforce, A Strategic Framework for Access to Justice in the Federal Civil Justice System: Report by the Access to Justice Taskforce (Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, 2009)Google Scholar; National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council, The Resolve to Resolve —Embracing ADR to Improve Access to Justice in the Federal Jurisdiction (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009)Google Scholar.

28 See, eg, Civil Dispute Resolution Act 2011 (Cth) s 4(1)(c).

29 Mallard v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 125, 133 [17] (Gummow, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ).

30 See, eg, Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 141(1), 142, 147; Criminal Code (Qld) ch 62 div 3; Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) ss 42(5)–(6), 61(5), (7), 95(6)–(9).

31 Grey v The Queen (2001) 75 ALJR 1708, 1714 [26] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Callinan JJ); R v H [2004] 2 AC 134, 147 [14]–[16] (Lord Bingham); D v Western Australia (2007) 179 A Crim R 377, 378 [4] (Buss JA); R (Nunn) v Chief Constable of Suffolk Police [2015] AC 225, 242 [22] (Lord Hughes SCJ).

32 Diehm v DPP (Nauru) (2013) 88 ALJR 34, 36 [3], 46–7 [63]–[65] (French CJ, Kiefel and Bell JJ). See also Richardson v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 116, 119–22 (Barwick CJ, McTiernan and Mason JJ); R v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563, 575 (Gibbs CJ, Mason, Murphy, Wilson and Dawson JJ); Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285, 292–3 [11]–[12] (Gaudron and Hayne JJ), 326–7 [117]–[119] (Callinan J).

33 Petty v The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 95, 99 (Mason CJ, Deane, Toohey and McHugh JJ) ; X7 v Australian Crime Commission (2013) 248 CLR 92, 117–18 [41]–[42] (French CJ and Crennan J), 136 [101]–[102] (Hayne and Bell JJ).

34 Cf Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (UK) s 34; Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 89A.

35 R v Bathurst [1968] 2 QB 99, 107–8 (Lord Parker CJ); Lee v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 455, 467 [33] (French CJ, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ).

36 Lee v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 455, 466–7 [32]–[33] (French CJ, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ); Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 375, 387–8 [35]–[37] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ), 394–5 [61]–[64] (Nettle J); R v Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commissioner (2016) 256 CLR 459, 471–3 [40]–[48] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ), 477–8 [68] (Gageler J).

37 Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50, 75 [68] (Gaudron, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ), interpreting Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217. See also R v Baden-Clay (2016) 90 ALJR 1013, 1021 [50]–[52] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Keane and Gordon JJ). Cf Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (UK) s 35.

38 See X7 v Australian Crime Commission (2013) 248 CLR 92, 121 [48] (French CJ and Crennan J); Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission (2013) 251 CLR 196, 259 [153] (Crennan J).

39 Cf Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 141(b), 143; Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) s 183; Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (UK) ss 5(5), 6A.

40 [1985] AC 424.

41 Wales v Wadham [1977] 1 WLR 199, 218, 220 (Tudor Evans J).

42 In the Marriage of Briese (1985) 82 FLR 369, 370 (Smithers J).

43 Oriolo v Oriolo (1985) 10 Fam LR 665, 666–7 (Emery, Fogarty and Murray JJ); In the Marriage of Giunti (1986) 11 Fam LR 160, 165 (Fogarty, Murray and Nygh JJ); In Marriage of Suiker (1993) 117 FLR 254, 258–9 (Nicholson CJ, Baker and Strauss JJ).

44 Gohil v Gohil [No 2] [2016] AC 849; Sharland v Sharland [2016] AC 871. See Alison, Diduck, ‘Consent, Fraud and Family Law’ (2016) 38 Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 83Google Scholar.

45 Shaw v Shaw [2014] FamCAFC 146 (14 August 2014) [45] (Ainslie-Wallace J).

46 In the Marriage of Stein (1986) 11 Fam LR 353, 360 (Evatt CJ and Nygh J).

47 In Marriage of Efthimiadis (1993) 112 FLR 399, 413 (Fogarty, Nygh and Hilton JJ).

48 In the Marriage of Morrison (1994) 18 Fam LR 519, 527 (Fogarty, Baker and Kay JJ).

49 Cohen, above n 16, 54.

50 Masoud v Masoud (2016) 54 Fam LR 245, 251 [19] (Bryant CJ, Ainslie-Wallace and Le Poer Trench JJ).

51 See also Oriolo v Oriolo (1985) 10 Fam LR 665, 668 (Emery, Fogarty and Murray JJ). Cf In the Marriage of Howard (1982) 45 ALR 185, 201 (Evatt CJ, Asche SJ and Strauss J).

52 In particular, pts 1, 24. Where there is no comparable FCC rule, the Court may apply the Rules, pursuant to FCC Rules r 1.05(2).

53 In what follows we refer to the disclosure requirements under the Rules .

54 See above n 12.

55 Thompson v Berg (2014) 51 Fam LR 247, 257 [59] (May, Ainslie-Wallace and Ryan JJ).

56 FCC Rules r 14.02; Federal Circuit Court Act 1999 (Cth) s 45(1).

57 Australian Law Reform Commission, above n 8, 133 [5.153]–[5.154]. Though the common law duty of disclosure continues to operate in tandem: Proctor v Proctor [2016] FCCA 613 (23 March 2016) [46] n 22 (Judge Harman).

58 FCC Rules rr 24.02–24.03.

59 Ibid r 24.04.

60 Ibid r 14.02; Federal Circuit Court Act 1999 (Cth) s 45(1). See Colville v Colville [2014] FCCA 3138 (19 August 2014) [73]–[86] (Judge Harman).

61 Australian Law Reform Commission, above n 8, 133 [5.155].

62 Ibid 134–5 [5.163]–[5.165].

63 Ibid 133–4 [5.159]–[5.162].

64 Ibid 135–6 [5.167]–[5.173]. It is beyond the scope of this article to consider the merits of this conclusion.

65 ‘Parties’ include trustees of a bankrupt estate: Needham v Trustees of the Bankrupt Estate of Needham [2016] FamCA 253 (20 April 2016) [65] (McClelland J).

66 Schweitzer v Schweitzer [2012] FamCA 445 (10 May 2012) [40] (O’Reilly J), citing Rules rr 13.08, 13.10, 13.12–13.13.

67 Schweitzer v Schweitzer [2012] FamCA 445 (10 May 2012) [45] (O’Reilly J), citing B v B (Matrimonial Proceedings: Discovery) [1979] 1 All ER 801, 805, 807 (Dunn J). See also Masoud v Masoud (2016) 54 Fam LR 245, 251 [20] (Bryant CJ, Ainslie-Wallace and Le Poer Trench JJ).

68 Schweitzer v Schweitzer [2012] FamCA 445 (10 May 2012) [50], [57] (O’Reilly J).

69 Masoud v Masoud (2016) 54 Fam LR 245, 251 [20]–[21] (Bryant CJ, Ainslie-Wallace and Le Poer Trench JJ).

70 [2016] FamCA 253 (20 April 2016); currently under appeal, see Needham v Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Needham [2016] FamCAFC 102 (17 June 2016).

71 Needham v Trustees of the Bankrupt Estate of Needham [2016] FamCA 253 (20 April 2016) [66] (McClelland J).

72 Ibid [68], using the words of Bryant CJ and Ainslie-Wallace J in Masoud v Masoud (2016) 54 Fam LR 245, 251 [21].

73 Ibid [69].

74 Rules rr 13.15(1), 13.16.

75 See, eg, In Marriage of Black (1992) 106 FLR 154, 159 (Nicholson CJ); Southers v Southers [2016] FamCA 67 (15 February 2016) [35] (Le Poer Trench J).

76 In Marriage of Mazur (1991) 105 FLR 77, 78 (Hase J).

77 See, eg, Meng v Nham [2013] FCWA 13 (8 February 2013) [12] (Crisford J); Myrtle v Myrtle [2014] FamCAFC 31 (5 March 2014) [73] (Strickland, Ainslie-Wallace and Murphy JJ).

78 See, eg, Nixon v Nixon [2012] FamCA 956 (19 October 2012) [21] (Dessau J).

79 Bonner v Bonner [2010] FamCA 928 (13 October 2010) [30] (Cronin J).

80 Sullivan v Sullivan [2012] FamCA 837 (2 October 2012) [12] (Fowler J).

81 Southers v Southers [2016] FamCA 67 (15 February 2016) [35] (Le Poer Trench J).

82 In Marriage of Weir (1992) 110 FLR 403, 407–8 (Nicholson CJ, Strauss and Nygh JJ). See also Weston v Weston [2012] FCWA 24 (23 March 2012) [181]–[183] (Moncrieff J).

83 Gould v Gould [2007] FLC 93–333, 81 715 [25] (Bryant CJ, Finn and Boland JJ) (‘Gould’) citing In Marriage of Kannis [2002] FamCA 1150 (24 December 2002) [51] (Nicholson CJ, Buckley and Kay JJ) (reported in edited form in (2002) 172 FLR 464).

84 Jenkin, above n 16, 22.

85 J R, Wilczek, ‘“Conduct”—Its Relevance in the Determination of Family Court Proceedings: The Porcupine Syndrome’ (1987) 61 Australian Law Journal 488, 494Google Scholar.

86 Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd [1977] QB 881, 896 (Lord Denning MR); Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280, 299–300 (Lord Diplock), 308 (Lord Keith of Kinkel), 312 (Lord Scarman); Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125, 158–9 [107] (Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ); Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 303, 319 [44]–[45] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ).

87 Moore v Moore [2014] FLC 93–595, 79 358 [221], 79 359 [223] (Bryant CJ, Finn and Thackray JJ). See Rules rr 13.01(1), 13.07(b).

88 Peters v Giannopoulos [2016] FamCA 260, [112] (Berman J).

89 Reilly v Reilly [No 2] [2016] FCCA 1706, [99], [101] (Judge Harman).

90 Rules r 13.12.

91 Ibid r 13.13.

92 Ibid rr 13.04(1)–(2).

93 Act s 4(1) (definition of ‘property’).

94 In the Marriage of Duff (1977) 29 FLR 46, 55–6 (Watson SJ, Murray and Wood JJ); In Marriage of Best (1993) 116 FLR 343, 355 (Fogarty, Lindenmayer and McGovern JJ); Kennon v Spry (2008) 238 CLR 366, 387–8 [54], 390 [64] (French CJ).

95 In Marriage of Mitchell (1995) 120 FLR 292, 304 (Nicholson CJ, Fogarty and Jordan JJ).

96 In the Marriage of White [1979] FLC 90–682.

97 See Patrick, Parkinson, ‘Family Trusts and Third Parties under the Family Law Act 1975’ (2012) 26 Australian Journal of Family Law 5Google Scholar.

98 (2016) 257 CLR 490.

99 Ibid 506 [54] (French CJ, Gageler, Keane and Nettle JJ), quoting In Marriage of Kelly [No 2] [1981] FLC 91–108, 76 803.

100 Ibid.

101 Ibid 506–7 [54].

102 Ibid 498 [13]–[14] (French CJ, Gageler, Keane and Nettle JJ), 517 [89] (Gordon J).

103 Ibid 498 [14] (French CJ, Gageler, Keane and Nettle JJ).

104 Ibid 499–500 [20].

105 Ibid 500 [23].

106 Ibid 505 [45]. This aspect of the High Court's decision in Hall v Hall will be considered further in Part IV below.

107 Ibid 506–7 [54].

108 Ibid 505 [48], 507 [56], [58].

109 Sadek v Hall (2015) 53 Fam LR 187, 194 [25] (Thackray, Strickland and Aldridge JJ).

110 In the Marriage of Briese (1985) 82 FLR 369, 370 (Smithers J), approved in Oriolo v Oriolo (1985) 10 Fam LR 665, 666–7 (Emery, Fogarty and Murray JJ).

111 Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108, 120 [37] (French CJ, Hayne, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

112 In the Marriage of Hickey (2003) 30 Fam LR 355, 370 [39] (Nicholson CJ, Ellis and O’Ryan JJ); Bevan v Bevan (2013) 279 FLR 1, 16 [77] (Bryant CJ and Thackray J). The same reasoning applies to s 90SM in respect of applications by parties to de facto relationships that have broken down. In what follows a reference to s 79 includes s 90SM of the Act .

113 Willis v Sampson [2012] FamCA 613 (31 July 2012) [25] (Kent J).

114 In the Marriage of Morrison (1995) 18 Fam LR 519, 526 (Fogarty, Baker and Kay JJ).

115 Ashley, Murray, ‘Concealment in Family Financial Proceedings: A Crime by Any Other Name’ (2014) 44 Family Law 1131, 1132Google Scholar.

116 Hall v Hall (2016) 257 CLR 490, 496, 697–8 [2] (French CJ, Gageler, Keane and Nettle JJ).

117 Act s 97(3).

118 Rules r 1.04.

119 In Marriage of Chang and Su (2002) 170 FLR 244, 264 [72] (Kay and Dawe JJ).

120 Pulukuri v Pulukuri [2013] FamCA 132 (4 March 2013) [74] (Cronin J).

121 Reilly v Reilly [No 2] [2016] FCCA 1706 (24 February 2016) [109] (Judge Harman).

122 D A, Rollie Thompson, ‘The Evolution of Modern Canadian Family Law Procedure: The End of the Adversary System? Or Just the End of the Trial?’ (2003) 41 Family Court Review 155, 161Google Scholar.

123 Cohen, above n 16, 55.

124 Minton v Minton [1979] AC 593, 601 (Viscount Dilhorne), 608 (Lord Scarman); In the Marriage of Hickey (2003) 30 Fam LR 355, 376 [66] (Nicholson CJ, Ellis and O’Ryan JJ); Miller v Miller [2006] 2 AC 618, 636 [35] (Lord Nicholls).

125 See Thompson v Berg (2014) 51 Fam LR 247, 265 [106] (May, Ainslie-Wallace and Ryan JJ).

126 Livesey [1985] AC 424, 430.

127 Belinda, Fehlberg et al, ‘Post-Separation Parenting and Financial Arrangements: Exploring Changes Over Time’ (2013) 27 International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 359, 361Google Scholar.

128 See Australian Law Reform Commission, above n 8, 131 [5.142].

129 See, eg, the paternity case of G v H (1994) 181 CLR 387, 389–91 (Brennan and McHugh JJ), 401–3 (Deane, Dawson and Gaudron JJ).

130 See John, Henry Wigmore, The Science of Judicial Proof—As Given by Logic, Psychology, and General Experience and Illustrated in Judicial Trials (Little, Brown & Co, 3rd ed, 1937) 52–4 § 28Google Scholar.

131 J D, Heydon, Cross on Evidence (LexisNexis Butterworths, 10th Aust ed, 2015) 33 [1190]Google Scholar.

132 Ibid 37 [1215]. Cf Cook's Construction Pty Ltd v Brown (2004) 49 ACSR 62, 67–8 [32]–[33] where Young CJ in Eq limited the ‘Jones v Dunkel’ label to inferences drawn against a party who does not bear the onus of proof.

133 (1959) 101 CLR 298.

134 Sagacious Legal Pty Ltd v Wesfarmers General Insurance Ltd (2011) 16 ANZ Ins Cas 61-885, 78 771 [78] (Besanko, Perram and Katzmann JJ).

135 Peter, Hannan, ‘Use of Affidavits in the Family Court’ (2012) 2 Family Law Review 72, 96–7Google Scholar.

136 Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361, 384–5 [63]–[64] (Heydon, Crennan and Bell JJ).

137 See Bateman v Bowe [2013] FamCA 253 (19 April 2013) [22], [27]–[30] (Murphy J); Surridge v Surridge [2017] FLC 93–757 .

138 State Central Authority v Papastavrou [2008] FamCA 1120 (22 December 2008) [51]–[54] (Bennett J); Kuay-Hoa v Hoa [2011] FamCA 1093 (16 September 2011) [102]–[103] (Bennett J).

139 (1959) 101 CLR 298.

140 Hall v Hall [2015] FamCAFC 154 (7 August 2015) [79] (Thackray, Strickland and Aldridge JJ). See also Jacks v Parker (2011) 248 FLR 9, 38 [151] (Thackray and Strickland JJ); Masoud v Masoud (2016) 54 Fam LR 245, 256 [51] (Bryant CJ, Ainslie-Wallace and Le Poer Trench JJ).

141 Masoud v Masoud (2016) 54 Fam LR 245, 255–6 [50] (Bryant CJ, Ainslie-Wallace and Le Poer Trench JJ), citing Cook's Construction Pty Ltd v Brown (2004) 49 ACSR 62, 67 [32]–[33] (Young CJ in Eq).

142 P W, Young, ‘Fact Finding Made Easy’ (2007) 80 Australian Law Journal 454, 455Google Scholar.

143 In the Marriage of Stein (1986) 11 Fam LR 353, 361 (Evatt CJ and Nygh J). See also Cottle v Cottle [2005] FMCAfam 185 (22 April 2005) [32] (Riethmuller FM).

144 See, eg, Walters v Walters [2007] FamCA 832 (3 August 2007) [81]–[82], [141]–[142], [221], [224], [254]–[255] (Mullane J); Kuay-Hoa v Hoa [2011] FamCA 1093 (16 September 2011) [102]–[103] (Bennett J); Tethys v Tethys (2014) 52 Fam LR 110, 121–2 [76]–[77] (May, Ainslie-Wallace and Austin JJ); Padfield v Padgett [2015] FCCA 2225 (18 August 2015) [93] (Judge Baker).

145 (2016) 257 CLR 490, 505 [48] (French CJ, Gageler, Keane and Nettle JJ).

146 Mead v Mead (2007) 81 ALJR 1185, 1187 [10] (Gleeson CJ). Cf In Marriage of Atkinson (1997) 136 FLR 347, 357–8 (Baker J), 375 (Lindenmayer J).

147 Rules r 13.14(a)(i).

148 Ross and Williams, above n 16, 11 [38].

149 [2013] FamCA 900 (13 November 2013).

150 Ibid [6].

151 Ibid.

152 Ibid [8]–[11].

153 Rules r 11.09(1).

154 See Field v Bowers [2012] FamCA 189 (2 April 2012) [14] (Cronin J).

155 Richard, Ingleby, ‘When Can a Party Withdraw an Admission Pursuant to the Family Law Rules, r 11.09?’ (2012) 2 Family Law Review 143, 144Google Scholar.

156 Ibid 147.

157 Ibid 147–8, citing Pittman v Pittman [2011] FCWA 69, which the authors have not been able to access.

158 Rules rr 13.12(a), 13.13(1)(a)(i).

159 See, eg, Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 128; Evidence Act 1906 (WA) ss 11, 24.

160 Hannan, above n 135, 72.

161 See Ferrall v Blyton (2000) 27 Fam LR 178, 201 [90] (Nicholson CJ, Lindenmayer and Kay JJ).

162 See, eg, In Marriage of Atkinson (1997) 136 FLR 347, 361 (Lindenmayer J); Ferrall v Blyton (2000) 27 Fam LR 178, 182 [20], 186 [33]–[34], 200 [89] (Nicholson CJ, Lindenmayer and Kay JJ); J v D (2006) 36 Fam LR 206, 222 [69]–[70] (Young J); V v V (2008) 217 FLR 134, 137 [15] (Cronin J); Aitken v Murphy [2011] FamCA 785 (12 October 2011) [128] (Young J).

163 Bernard, C Cairns, Australian Civil Procedure (Lawbook, 11th ed, 2016) 619Google Scholar [15.60].

164 Rules rr 15.17(1)–(2).

165 Mullen v De Bry (2007) 36 Fam LR 501, 508 [25]–[26] (Altobelli FM). See also Moriarty v Moriarty (2009) 243 FLR 409, 417 [56] (Cronin J).

166 Sadek v Hall (2015) 53 Fam LR 187, 193 [24] (Thackray, Strickland and Aldridge JJ).

167 See, eg, Oriolo v Oriolo (1985) 10 Fam LR 665, 668 (Emery, Fogarty and Murray JJ); Sullivan v Sullivan [2012] FamCA 837, [12]–[15] (Fowler J); Garrett v Cowell [2013] FamCAFC 91 (7 June 2013) [13], [67], [69] (May, Thackray and Johnston JJ); Colville v Colville [2014] FCCA 3138 (19 August 2014) [26]–[28] (Judge Harman); Padfield v Padgett [2015] FCCA 2225 (18 August 2015) [36], [68] (Judge Baker).

168 Sadek v Hall (2015) 53 Fam LR 187, 194 [25] (Thackray, Strickland and Aldridge JJ).

169 Ibid.

170 (2016) 257 CLR 490.

171 Sadek v Hall (2015) 53 Fam LR 187, 198 [49]–[50].

172 Cairns, above n 163, 572 [13.80].

173 The ‘Anton Piller’ label being derived from Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] Ch 55.

174 Long v Specifier Publications Pty Ltd (1998) 44 NSWLR 545, 547 (Powell JA).

175 Act s 34(1). See In the Marriage of Talbot (1994) 129 ALR 711, 713–14 (Lindenmayer J); Re Z (1996) 134 FLR 40, 65 (Nicholson CJ and Frederico J).

176 Rules r 14.04.

177 Simsek v Macphee (1982) 148 CLR 636, 641 (Stephen J). See also In the Marriage of Talbot (1994) 129 ALR 711, 713–14 (Lindenmayer J).

178 In Marriage of Mazur (1991) 105 FLR 77.

179 Rules rr 11.02(2)(a), 11.02(2)(c).

180 Ibid r 13.14(b).

181 See, eg, In the Marriage of Tate (2000) 26 Fam LR 731; Turner v Turner [2014] FamCA 925 (29 October 2014).

182 In the Marriage of Tate (2000) 26 Fam LR 731, 749 [95]–[98], 751 [108] (Nicholson CJ, Kay and Waddy JJ). Cf Zane v Allan [2008] FLC 93–378, 82 746 [34] (Finn and Thackray JJ).

183 Surridge v Surridge [2017] FLC 93–757, [102] (Murphy, Aldridge and Kent JJ).

184 Bevan v Bevan (2013) 279 FLR 1, 13 [59]–[60] (Bryant CJ and Thackray J).

185 Ibid 14 [61]–[63].

186 In the Marriage of Hickey (2003) 30 Fam LR 355, 370 [39] (Nicholson CJ, Ellis and O’Ryan JJ).

187 (2012) 247 CLR 108, 120 [37] (French CJ, Hayne, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

188 Bevan v Bevan (2013) 279 FLR 1, 15 [71] (Bryant CJ and Thackray J).

189 Ibid 29–30 [166] (Finn J).

190 In the Marriage of Giunti (1986) 11 Fam LR 160, 165 (Fogarty, Murray and Nygh JJ).

191 Transcript of Proceedings, Chang v Su (High Court of Australia, S104/2002, Gleeson CJ and Callinan J, 5 November 2002) 150 (Callinan J).

192 [1986] FLC 91–757 (‘Monte’).

193 Anthony Dickey, Family Law (Lawbook, 6th ed, 2014) 550–1 [40.330].

194 In the Marriage of Giunti (1986) 11 Fam LR 160, 165–6 (Fogarty, Murray and Nygh JJ); In the Marriage of Stein (1986) 11 Fam LR 353, 357 (Evatt CJ and Nygh J); In the Marriage of Mezzacappa (1987) 90 FLR 350, 353–4 (Joske, Strauss and Mullane JJ).

195 (1992) 110 FLR 403 (‘Weir’).

196 Ibid 408 (Nicholson CJ, Strauss and Nygh JJ).

197 Ibid, applied in Manichaeus v Manichaeus [2010] FamCA 397 (21 May 2010) [20] (Faulks DCJ).

198 See, eg, In Marriage of Chang and Su (2002) 170 FLR 244, 263–4 [70]–[72] (Kay and Dawe JJ); Gould [2007] FLC 93–333; Somerset v Somerset [2009] FamCAFC 5 (19 January 2009).

199 In Marriage of Weir (1992) 110 FLR 403, 409 (Nicholson CJ, Strauss and Nygh JJ).

200 As was the case, eg, in In Marriage of Kannis (2002) 172 FLR 464, 465–6 [28] and In Marriage of Chang and Su (2002) 170 FLR 244.

201 Harrell v Nesland [2016] FamCAFC 122 (13 July 2016). See, for example, Needham v Trustees of the Bankrupt Estate of Needham [2016] FamCA 253 (20 April 2016) [74] where McLelland J examined the facts before concluding that, in the case at hand, whether there was additional property was a matter for ‘mere speculation’.

202 See, eg, Needham v Trustees of the Bankrupt Estate of Needham [2016] FamCA 253 (20 April 2016).

203 Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108, 120 [37] (French CJ, Hayne, Kiefel and Bell JJ) (emphasis in original).

204 HDM v MM & SJM [2006] FamCA 47 (14 February 2006) [27] (Kay, Holden and Coleman JJ); Masoud v Masoud (2016) 54 Fam LR 245, 252 [24] (Bryant CJ, Ainslie-Wallace and Le Poer Trench JJ); Needham v Trustees of the Bankrupt Estate of Needham [2016] FamCA 253 (20 April 2016) [72] (McClelland J).

205 [2006] FamCA 47 (14 February 2006), applied in Needham v Trustees of the Bankrupt Estate of Needham [2016] FamCA 253 (20 April 2016) [72].

206 Ibid [26].

207 Ibid [27].

208 [2007] FLC 93–333.

209 Ibid 81 716 [27] (Bryant CJ, Finn and Boland JJ).

210 See also In the Marriage of Mezzacappa (1987) 90 FLR 350.

211 (2002) 170 FLR 244.

212 Ibid 250 [28], 261 [64].

213 Ibid 261 [66].

214 Ibid 263–4 [71]–[72].

215 (1992) 106 FLR 154.

216 Ibid 158 (Nicholson CJ).

217 (2002) 172 FLR 464.

218 [2012] FCWA 24 (23 March 2012).

219 Gould [2007] FLC 93–333, 81 715 [26] (Bryant CJ, Finn and Boland JJ), citing In Marriage of Kannis (2002) 172 FLR 464.

220 Ibid 81 715–16 [26]–[27].

221 Taylor v Taylor (1979) 143 CLR 1, 5 (Gibbs J), 10 (Stephen J), 13 (Mason J), 22 (Aickin J).

222 See, eg, In the Marriage of Pelerman (2000) 26 Fam LR 505.

223 Barker v Barker (2007) 36 Fam LR 650, 676 [124] (Bryant CJ, May and Boland JJ).

224 Ebner v Pappas [2014] FLC 93–619, 79 661 [33] (May, Ainslie-Wallace and Aldridge JJ).

225 Ibid 79 664 [64], 79 667–8 [99] (May, Ainslie-Wallace and Aldridge JJ).

226 In Marriage of Prowse (1994) 118 FLR 135, 141, 146 (Baker, Lindenmayer and Rowlands JJ); In the Marriage of Morrison (1994) 18 Fam LR 519, 528 (Fogarty, Baker and Kay JJ). See also House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, 504–5 (Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ); De Winter v De Winter (1979) 23 ALR 211, 216–18 (Gibbs J); Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605, 610 (Gibbs CJ), 621–2 (Mason J), 634 (Wilson J), 649 (Dawson J); Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513, 517–20 (Mason and Deane JJ), 535 (Wilson and Dawson JJ).

227 Barker v Barker (2007) 36 Fam LR 650, 659 [46] (Bryant CJ, May and Boland JJ).

228 Shaw v Shaw [2014] FamCAFC 146 (14 August 2014) [46] (Ainslie-Wallace J).

229 Lisa, Young et al, Family Law in Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths, 9th ed, 2016) 942Google Scholar [15.37].

230 Patrick, Parkinson, Australian Family Law in Context: Commentary and Materials (Lawbook, 6th ed, 2015) 494Google Scholar [15.40].

231 Rules ch 1 pt 10.4.

232 Harris v Caladine (1991) 172 CLR 84, 104 (Brennan J); In the Marriage of Pelerman (2000) 26 Fam LR 505, 517 [66], [69] (Ellis, Lindenmayer and Rose JJ).

233 In Marriage of Suiker (1993) 117 FLR 254, 260 (Nicholson CJ, Baker and Strauss JJ). See also Pearce v Pearce [2016] FamCAFC 14 (11 February 2016) [34]–[35] (Murphy, Aldridge and Forrest JJ); Waterman v Waterman [2017] FamCAFC 23 (8 February 2017).

234 In the Marriage of Holland (1982) 8 Fam LR 233, 239 (Evatt CJ, Ellis SJ and Murray J); Barker v Barker (2007) 36 Fam LR 650, 675 [120] (Bryant CJ, May and Boland JJ). See, eg, Berry v James [2010] FamCAFC 58 (26 March 2010) [80] (Finn, Coleman and Strickland JJ).

235 Jeeves v Jeeves [2011] FamCAFC 94 (28 April 2011) [102] (Coleman, Ainslie-Wallace and Murphy JJ); Nyles v Nyles (2011) 46 Fam LR 29, 70–1 [180] (Mushin J).

236 See, eg, In Marriage of Suiker (1993) 117 FLR 254; In the Marriage of Morrison (1994) 18 Fam LR 519; In the Marriage of Pelerman (2000) 26 Fam LR 505; Barker v Barker (2007) 36 Fam LR 650; Nyles v Nyles (2011) 46 Fam LR 29.

237 For discussion of foreign financial agreements see Mary, Keyes, ‘Financial Agreements in International Family Litigation’ (2011) 25 Australian Journal of Family Law 167Google Scholar.

238 Macleod v Macleod [2010] 1 AC 298, 314 [31], 316 [38]–[39] (Baroness Hale); Granatino v Radmacher (formerly Granatino) [2011] 1 AC 534, 555–8 [50]–[52] (Lord Phillips P).

239 Dickey, above n 193, 631 [44.740].

240 Act ss 90K(1)(a), 90UM(1)(a).

241 Adame v Adame [2014] FCCA 42, [135] (Judge Jarrett).

242 Patrick, Parkinson, ‘Setting Aside Financial Agreements’ (2001) 15 Australian Journal of Family Law 26, 29–32Google Scholar.

243 Act s 86(3). See, eg, In the Marriage of Dupont (1980) 47 FLR 472.

244 Ibid s 87(8). See, eg, In the Marriage of Fryda and Johnson [No 2] (1981) 7 Fam LR 238; In the Marriage of Suters (1983) 9 Fam LR 340.

245 Parkinson, above n 242, 29.

246 Ibid 32.

247 In the Marriage of Green and Kwiatek (1982) 44 ALR 681, 684 (Asche SJ, Lindenmayer and Nygh JJ); Otero v Otero [2010] FMCAfam 1022 (31 August 2010) [10] (Hartnett FM).

248 Hoult v Hoult [2011] FLC 93–489, 86 072–3 [125]–[128] (Murphy J). Cf Stoddard v Stoddard [2007] FMCAfam 735 (21 September 2007) [44] (Altobelli FM); Blackmore v Webber [2009] FMCAfam 154 (6 April 2009) [42] (Bender FM).

249 See, eg, Adame v Adame [2014] FCCA 42 (16 January 2014) [128] (Judge Jarrett).

250 See, eg, Cording v Oster [2010] FamCA 511 (26 May 2010) [61] (Cronin J); Otero v Otero [2010] FMCAfam 1022 (31 August 2010) [24] (Hartnett FM); Nyles v Nyles (2011) 46 Fam LR 29; Jeeves v Jeeves [2011] FamCAFC 94 (28 April 2011).

251 Jeeves v Jeeves [No 3] [2010] FamCA 488 (18 June 2010) [441] (Cronin J).

252 Act s 13K(1).

253 Ibid s 13K(2)(a).

254 Ibid s 13K(2)(d).

255 See ‘Arbitrating Family Financial Disputes’ [2005] (Special Edition, September) Australian Family Lawyer 4.

256 Act s 117(1).

257 Ibid s 117(2).

258 Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311, 315–16 (Stephen, Mason, Aickin and Wilson JJ); Re LGM and CAM (2006) 35 Fam LR 598, 604 [39] (Holden, Coleman and May JJ).

259 In Marriage of Kohan (1992) 112 FLR 151, 164 (Strauss, Lindenmayer and Bulley JJ).

260 Act s 117(2A)(c); Rules r 13.14(a)(iii). See also Rules r 11.02(2)(e).

261 Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311, 317–18 (Murphy J).

262 (1985) 82 FLR 369.

263 Ibid 369–70, approved in Oriolo v Oriolo (1985) 10 Fam LR 665, 667 (Emery, Fogarty and Murray JJ).

264 Oriolo v Oriolo (1985) 10 Fam LR 665, 668 (Emery, Fogarty and Murray JJ).

265 See, eg, In the Marriage of Johnson (1999) 26 Fam LR 485, 492 [23]–[25] (Ellis, Kay and Dessau JJ); Wong v Wei [No 2] [2009] FamCA 1177 (3 December 2009) [288]–[289] (Brown J); Willis v Sampson [2012] FamCA 613 (31 July 2012) [20], [25] (Kent J); Hitch v Hitch (2012) 47 Fam LR 603, 616 [66], 619 [94]–[97] (May and Ainslie-Wallace JJ); Haseloff v Kormann [2014] FamCA 570 (25 July 2014) [44] (Dawe J); Colville v Colville [2014] FCCA 3138 (19 August 2014) [129], [133]–[135], [140]–[141] (Judge Harman).

266 Wong v Wei [No 2] [2009] FamCA 1177 (3 December 2009) [283] (Brown J). See also Ross and Williams, above n 16, 31–2 [120]–[122].

267 Marshman v Marshman [No 2] [2016] FCCA 1178 (7 June 2016) [12] (Judge Altobelli) citing In the Marriage of Greedy (1982) 8 Fam LR 669.

268 Australian Law Reform Commission, above n 8, 132 [5.146].

269 Rules r 13.14(a)(ii).

270 Ibid r 13.15(1)(c).

271 Act s 112AP(3).

272 Ibid s 112AP(1).

273 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 141(1); In Marriage of Tate (2002) 169 FLR 190, 205 [63], 207 [75] (Ellis and Holden JJ) citing Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525; Kendling v Kendling (2008) 220 FLR 399, 446 [270] (Coleman, May and Boland JJ).

274 In Marriage of Fahmi (1995) 121 FLR 210, 217 (Ellis, Finn and Brown JJ); In the Marriage of Malpass and Mayson (2000) 27 Fam LR 288, 291 [13] (Nicholson CJ, Murray and Kay JJ).

275 In the Marriage of P (1985) 9 Fam LR 1100, 1109–11, 1114 (Lindenmayer J). See also In the Marriage of Tingley (1984) 10 Fam LR 707, 714 (Simpson and Barblett JJ).

276 In the Marriage of Radwan (1985) 11 Fam LR 1, 9–10 (Frederico J).

277 In the Marriage of Malpass and Mayson (2000) 27 Fam LR 288, 296 [31] (Nicholson CJ, Murray and Kay JJ). For discussion of the options available to the court in cases where there has been a fraudulent or misleading statement made to revenue authorities see Richard Chisholm, ‘Exclusion of Evidence Inconsistent with Earlier Statements: The Rise and Fall of the “Elias Principle”’ (2001) 15 Australian Journal of Family Law 1, 22–4. See also V v V (2008) 217 FLR 134, 146–7 [66]–[72] (Cronin J).

278 P v K [2007] FCWA 30 (15 March 2007) [8]–[9], [149] (Crisford J).

279 In the Marriage of Malpass and Mayson (2000) 27 Fam LR 288.

280 Commissioner of Taxation v Worsnop (2009) 40 Fam LR 552. See also Commissioner of Taxation v Darling (2014) 285 FLR 428.

281 Rules rr 1.08(1)–(2).

282 Lambert v Jackson [2011] FamCA 275 (20 April 2011) [79] (Watts J) quoting Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543, 556 (Mason CJ).

283 Ibid.

284 Ibid [2]–[3].

285 [2005] WASCA 27 (15 December 2005). For an analogous case see Coe v NSW Bar Association [2000] NSWCA 13 (29 February 2000).

286 Ibid [10] (Malcolm CJ, Murray and Steytler JJ).

287 Dixon v Legal Practice Board (WA) [2012] WASC 79 (14 March 2012).

288 Australian Law Reform Commission, above n 8, 132 [5.148].

289 Ibid 132 [5.151].

290 Sullivan v Sullivan [2012] FamCA 837 (2 October 2012) [12] (Fowler J).

291 Pearse v Pearse (1846) 1 De G & Sm 12, 28–9; 63 ER 950, 957.

292 Australian Law Reform Commission, above n 8, 130 [5.140].