Justice
Kos was brutally critical of Family Court discovery rules which can hamper
attempts by the poorer and less well informed spouse seeking to extract
financial information from the wealthier and better informed spouse. He said orders for discovery need to be more
focussed, reflecting 2012 reforms made for the High Court.
In a relationship dispute over assets
tied up in an un-named multimillion dollar company, he ordered targeted
discovery of information about specific company transactions. Names of the spouses were supressed:
described anonymously as Mr Dixon and Ms Kingsley.
The High Court was told Ms Kingsley held
a thirty per cent interest in the company when the 18 year marriage ended. It was not disputed these shares are
relationship property. At issue is the
status of a further ten per cent shareholding Ms Kingsley acquired from three
shareholder/employees after her marriage ended.
She denied these shares are relationship property.
Justice Kos ordered specific disclosure
by the company of circumstances surrounding the employees departure and details
of agreements to transfer the shares.
Copies are to be made available only to Mr Dixon and his advisers.
Justice Kos said the discovery regime
operating in the Family Court is seriously outdated. Designed for an era before digital
communications and the retention of endless marginally relevant ephemera,
changes are needed to fit with the Relationship (Property) Act which requires
disputes to be resolved as inexpensively, simply and speedily as possible, he
said.
Dixon
v. Kingsley – High Court (27.08.15)
15.096