Judgments

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the father seeks costs on an indemnity basis – Where the mother unilaterally relocated the children overseas – Where the father began preparing for Hague proceedings – Where conduct of mother necessitated bringing of proceedings – Where neither party was wholly unsuccessful – Circumstances do not justify an indemnity costs order – Party/party costs ordered.

FAMILY LAW – Application for adjournment of trial on the first day of the trial – Application opposed by the first and second respondents and Independent Children’s Layer – Application dismissed. Application by the Independent Children’s Lawyer for the Applicant’s application for final orders to be dismissed – Application granted. Application by Independent Children’s Lawyer for costs thrown away for appearance at the first day of the trial – Where the applicant was wholly unsuccessful in his application for an adjournment of the trial – Costs granted in a quantum of $6,961.69.

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURAL – Where Reasons for Judgment had been delivered as to the overall property adjustment between the parties but further submissions were required as to what form of final property adjustment orders to be made to achieve justice and equity to both parties – Where such submissions were filed – Subsequent application to re-open and adduce further evidence was filed – Leave granted to re-open on a limited basis.

PROPERTY – Final property adjustment orders now made that achieve justice and equity to both parties.

FAMILY LAW – SECURITY FOR COSTS – Property proceedings – Where the Applicant Husband is incarcerated having pleaded guilty to various offences of violence against the Respondent Wife – Where the property pool is small and the only assets are in the Respondent Wife’s name – Where the parties entered into a financial agreement such that each party would keep what they had – Where financial agreement was erroneously entered into pursuant to s 90C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) after the parties were divorced – Where the Applicant Husband challenges the financial agreement and seeks property adjustment orders – Where the Respondent Wife seeks an order for security for costs –Where s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and r 12.02 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) considered – Where making of an order for security for costs will probably stymy the litigation – Where that is not determinative – Where costs order in favour of the Respondent Wife was made in interlocutory proceedings against the Applicant Husband and remains unpaid – Where the Applicant Husband faces deportation upon release pursuant to s 501 of the Migration Act 1901 (Cth) – Where there are justifying circumstances making it appropriate to order security for costs – Where orders made providing for the Husband to pay $50,000 into the trust account of the Wife’s solicitors – Where the parties have liberty to relist.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the applicant sought to attend the final hearing by audiovisual link citing safety fears and impecuniosity – Where the third respondent contended that issues of credit required the applicant to give her evidence in person – Where the applicant’s evidence is material to the Court’s determination – Application is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – where the father had filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking variation of consent orders – where application to vary orders dismissed - where the mother seeks costs on an indemnity basis – where the Independent Children’s Lawyer seeks the costs of the application – where the father was wholly unsuccessful in his application – consideration of s 114UB factors – where the mother failed to provide evidence of the costs agreement as between herself and her solicitors in compliance with rule 12.13 – costs granted on a party-party basis in favour of the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the Applicant and the First, Second and Third Respondents seek costs orders – Where the Respondents seek costs for the Applicant wife’s dismissed s 79A Application – Where the First Respondent husband also seeks costs for the wife’s dismissed Slip Rule application – Where the Applicant wife seeks costs of an interim hearing – Where leave is not granted to the husband to file out of time his application for costs incurred from the Slip Rule application – Orders made for the wife to pay $43,000 each to the husband and the Third Respondent – Costs of the costs applications.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Affidavits – Application by the wife to rely on a further affidavit for the final hearing – Where the husband objects to a paragraph and exhibit of the affidavit – Affidavit sworn in support of an Application in a Proceeding – Where it was not apparent the wife sought to rely on the affidavit in the principal proceedings – Where there is little opportunity to test the evidence.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Undefended hearing – where the applicant mother did not appear – where the father sought leave to proceed on an undefended basis – where the child had been living with the father for almost 3 years and had not spent time with the mother for approximately 4 years – where the father and the Independent Children’s lawyer sought orders that the child live with the father and not spend time or communicate with the mother unless the child expressed a wish to do so – allegations that the mother’s mental illness impedes her capacity to parent – where the mother had a history of fabricating events – where it was alleged that the mother had fabricated a pregnancy and the subsequent death of that infant – where the mother had not engaged in recommended treatment – leave granted to proceed on an undefended basis – orders as sought by the father and Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Undefended hearing – Where mother filed a Notice of Discontinuance – Where mother has been convicted of a violent indictable offence – Where Independent Children’s Lawyer and father agree that the children should live with the father and the father should have sole decision making responsibility – Where evidence establishes that the father is child focused - Order for children to live with the father – Order for father to have decision making responsibility – Order for mother to spend time with the children as agreed between the parties and at the father’s discretion.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where all parties and legal representatives were present at the start of the trial – where the mother sought an adjournment to allow her time to participate in a drug rehabilitation program and to better present her live with case – where that application was refused – where after a further adjournment for discussions the mother did not return to court and was not able to be contacted by her solicitors – mother’s legal representatives and counsel sought leave to withdraw and communicated to the court their understanding the mother would not be returning – where the father and the ICL then proposed consent terms between themselves – where evidence establishes that the mother’s current drug use means she represents an unacceptable risk of harm to the child of unsupervised time – where the father is child focused and will likely facilitate unsupervised time with the mother if it is safe to do - Sole decision making to father - Child to live with the father - Unless otherwise agreed, and at the father’s discretion, child to spend time with the mother on six occasions per year with such time to be supervised in the community.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Objection to subpoena – Where the applicant issued a subpoena to a firm of accountants seeking production of two email chains regarding a corporate restructure – Where the email chain includes the fourth respondent’s solicitor – Where the fourth respondent objects on the basis of legal professional privilege – Where the overall impression of the documents is of legal advice – Waiver – Where the second to fourth respondents’ pleadings put the respondents’ intentions as to the restructure in issue – Where the pleadings are inconsistent with the maintenance of the confidentiality – Improper purpose – Where the intentional removal of assets from the reach of the court fits the wide concept of illegality – Inference available that the restructure was done to defeat or delay the wife’s claim – Privilege does not attach – Notice of objection dismissed – Leave granted to inspect the documents.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — APPOINTMENT OF SINGLE EXPERTS — Where the parties cannot agree on the content of letters of instructions to single experts.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Cultural adoption – Consideration of Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Consent orders made in best interests of child – Orders for first respondent to have sole decision making – Orders for child to live with biological family.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING –Allegations of family violence – High conflict – Where father seeks build up to equal time arrangement and mother seeks to continue existing arrangement of three nights per fortnight with father – Where father seeks joint responsibility for decisions regarding major long-term issues – International travel – Injunctions.

FAMILY LAW – Ex Tempore Reasons – stay application – where the applicant sought a stay of interlocutory orders pending an appeal – where there had been non-compliance by the applicant with the orders the subject of the application – where the respondent sought an order pursuant to s106A – where the applicant failed to attend the hearing and to be available to his instructors for the purposes of the hearing – where the proceedings were marked by a protracted history involving determination of threshold disputes – consideration of the merits of the appeal – doubts as to the applicant’s bona fides – stay application dismissed – orders made pursuant to s 106A.

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – SANCTION – Where the father declined to seek a particular sanction for the mother’s contraventions without reasonable excuse – Where, since findings of contravention were made, the parties have worked co-operatively to facilitate the resumption of the children’s time with the father and the commencement of family therapy – Where the mother has taken steps to address her prior behaviour – Where imposing no sanction upholds the relevant legislative objectives.

COSTS – Where the contravention proceedings were necessary – Where the mother was wholly unsuccessful in her attempt to establish reasonable excuse – Orders made for mother to pay the father’s costs as agreed, and failing agreement, as assessed, sixty days following the making of final property orders.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the parties agree that the child should live with the mother and the mother have sole decision-making responsibility – Where the father sought to be consulted on major long-term decisions – Where there are serious concerns about father’s parenting capacity and the child’s safety – Where the father has perpetrated family violence – Where there is an unacceptable risk to the child spending time with the father that can only be ameliorated by supervision – Where all parties seek supervised time orders but diverge on the frequency and long-term continuation of supervision – Where the mother and ICL seek ongoing supervision – Where the father seeks supervised time until the child attains 10 years of age and unsupervised time thereafter – Whether the identified risks will be mitigated and will no longer be unacceptable when the child attains 10 years of age – Where there is no evidence to support a finding that the identified risks will reduce or change in the future – Where orders are made for long-term ongoing supervised time with the father – Whether the frequency of the time orders should change – Where the child derives benefit from his relationship with his father – Where there is no evidence to suggest a change to the frequency of time is in the best interests of the child – Where it is in the child’s best interests to spend monthly supervised time with the father and continue with weekly Zoom calls.

FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – Where the wife failed to comply with an order of the Court – Where the husband filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking leave to amend his Amended Response to Initiating Application – Leave granted.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife seeks leave to read and rely upon adversarial expert evidence – Where a single expert witness had been appointed under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“Rules”) – Where the Court is not satisfied the evidence should be allowed under r 7.08(2) of the Rules – Application dismissed with costs reserved.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – abuse of process – attempt to relitigate issue determined by earlier consent order – application by beneficiary of deceased estate of husband to intervene in property proceedings – application for substitution of legal personal representative of deceased husband – discovery sought against non-party – request for leave to issue subpoena.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – With whom the child lives and spends time with – Where the parties are unable to agree parenting arrangements for a nine year old child – Where the child currently lives with the respondent and spends five nights per fortnight with the applicant – Where the applicant seeks a change of primary care – Where the respondent seeks to reduce the child’s current time with the applicant to three nights per fortnight – Where the child experiences high levels of anxiety – Consideration of best interests – Where a change in primary care is likely to cause the child extreme distress and anxiety – Where the evidence supports a reduction in time from five nights to three nights per fortnight with the applicant – Sole parental responsibility for decision-making to the respondent – Orders.

FAMILY LAW – CONTEMPT – Sentencing – Respondent pleaded guilty to ten charges of contempt – Seriousness of contempt – Desirability of determining appropriate sentence for each charge – Totality of sentence should not exceed totality of offending – Imprisonment as sentence of last resort – Circumstances warrant imprisonment – Concurrency and cumulation - Part suspension of imprisonment – Good behaviour bond.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – where the wife seeks an order for costs on an indemnity basis – where the husband filed no response to the wife’s submissions – where the husband has not complied with previous court orders – where the husband’s conduct has delayed court proceedings – where the husband has been wholly unsuccessful in the proceedings – consideration of s 117(2A) factors – costs ordered on an indemnity basis in the wife’s favour.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final orders proposed with consent of all parties – Proposed orders suitable to ameliorate the risk to the children associated with the father in circumstances where the mother’s parental capacity is compromised – Final orders made in line with the terms provided by the parties.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Subpoenas – where subpoena objected to on the basis of protected confidence – whether party is a professional service – whether the communications are protected confidences – whether likely harm outweighs desirability of production – application objecting to subpoena dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT – Where both parties filed applications seeking the other comply with final orders regarding sale of the matrimonial property – Where both parties assert the other is responsible for the non-compliance with the orders – Where both parties seek alterations to the orders that deal with the sale of such property – Where enacting the husband’s proposed alterations would result in a substantive change to the orders – Sale of the property and avoidance of future litigation in the interest of both parties – Discharge and substitution of the order regarding sale of the property.

FAMILY LAW – FINAL PARENTING ORDERS – Allegations of family violence – Mother’s allegations accepted in part – Where the children live with the mother – Where the children have not spent any time with the father for in excess of four years – Consideration of the impact on the mother in the event of any order for time between the children and their father - Children to live with the mother – No orders for time between the children and their father.

APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATON – Apprehended bias – Where an application for disqualification is made during contested final parenting proceedings – Whether comments from the bench and/or the conduct of the judicial officer with respect to the use of an interpreter for the father might cause a fair-minded lay observer to conclude that the Court will decide the competing parenting applications other than on its legal and factual merit – All grounds fail – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY - Short marriage – Application by the wife for an adjustment of property interests - Where the marriage lasted two months - Where no compelling reasons exist to make a property adjustment as per s79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - Application refused.

PROPERTY – Disputed asset pool – Where applicant wife claims that the husband is the beneficial owner of millions of dollars’ worth of tangible and intangible property in Australia and overseas - Where wife asserts that the husband has not made a full and frank disclosure - Where the court is not satisfied of beneficial ownership - Where even if the Husband did own some or all of the assets, no adjustment would be warranted.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Where applicant wife seeks a spouse maintenance claim despite leave being refused under s44(3) and appeal against refusal being dismissed. Application is dismissed.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Practice and Procedure- Where applicant wife asserts that her case requires intervention by the Attorney General - Where applicant therefore seeks adjournment of hearing - Where no evidence or specific claims are made to advance this proposition - Where adjournment application is opposed by all other parties -Adjournment application is refused.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Ex Tempore Reasons – undefended hearing - best interests – decision-making authority – live with – passport – where the father withheld consent to passport applications for the children – where there were allegations of family violence against the father – where the father disengaged from proceedings – where the matter proceeded in the absence of the father – sole decision-making authority to the mother – the children to live with the mother and spend time with the father as agreed between the parents – passports to be issued for the children without the consent of the father.

FAMILY LAW – LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Conduct of solicitor – Where the legal practitioner has failed to comply with orders for the filing of documents – Where the legal practitioner has failed to attend three Court hearings – Where the legal practitioner has breached the South Australian Legal Practitioners Conduct Rules – Referral to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – With whom the children live – Where the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer contend that the risk of harm arising from psychological abuse perpetrated by the mother is so high that it requires limitation ad supervision of the children’s time with the mother into the future – Where the father proposes orders in terms similar to the orders promoted by the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the Court finds that there is unacceptable risk that the children will suffer psychological harm in the mother’s care – Where the evidence supports the making of an order that the father have sole parental responsibility for the children.

PARENTING – Where the mother amended her application on the first morning of trial - Where the mother promotes unsupervised time between the children and the father – Where the Court finds that the mother will never voluntarily facilitate time between the children and their father.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the mother filed an Application in a Proceeding in the evening prior to the competing applications being listed for Closing Submissions – Where the application was dismissed – Where the mother filed a further Application in a Proceeding subsequent to Judgment being reserved – Where the mother seeks a variety of orders including to adduce further evidence – Where the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose the application – application refused.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – TRIAL SEQUENCE – the applicant submits that the respondent should file his case outline first as the applicant does not understand the case advanced by the respondent – held, case outlines should be filed concurrently.

MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – EXPERT EVIDENCE – the respondent submits that the applicant should be restricted to a single expert witness per issue – held, the applicant should not be so restricted.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim hearing – Where the matter is part-heard – Where the applicant sought to remove the requirement for professionally supervised time – Where the applicant failed to disclose mental health concerns – Where the respondent contended that professionally supervised time is still warranted – Where the applicant proposed the two paternal aunts as alternate private supervisors – Where the paternal aunts fail to address or acknowledge the father’s mental health conditions – Where the respondent opposed the paternal aunts as alternate private supervisors – Where the applicant sought a video communication order – Where the Court made orders for video communication between the applicant and the child – Where the Court otherwise dismissed the applicant’s interim application.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the de facto wife seeks to join the de facto husband’s mother and other corporate and trust entities in which she contends the husband controls as additional respondents to the proceeding – Where the proposed additional respondents oppose the joinder – Where the de facto wife abandoned or withdrew her contentions of sham – Where she instead contends control – Consideration of whether to refuse an application for joinder if there is no merit – Where the de facto wife’s claim could not be said to be unsuccessful – Where r 3.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) mandates the joinder of the additional respondents as necessary parties to the proceeding – Order for the joinder of the proposed additional respondents.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Injunctive orders – Where the de facto wife seeks injunctive orders to receive notice prior specified dealings with a unit trust and a discretionary trust of which she contends the de facto husband directs the conduct of – Where the appointor and the trustees of those trusts, being the second, fourth, and fifth respondents, oppose the injunctive orders as sought – Where those respondents contend the evidence does not establish that the de facto wife has an arguable case to justify preservation of the status quo and that, in absence of a risk of dealing with assets to frustrate a judgment, an injunction cannot be grounded by application of the “chicken soup” principle – Where the balance of convenience favours the injunctive orders broadly as sought by the wife amended to a defined scope – Notification orders made.

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION APPLICATION – Breach of procedural order– Where the application for contravention was not dealt with at the principal proceedings – Where the application was brought in terrorem – Where the application was found to be trivial and lacking significance – Where the application for contravention is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDING – Property adjustment pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the husband’s parents both personally and by way of corporations they control have made significant advances of funds to the husband prior to, during the course of, and subsequent to, the parties marriage – Where the husband contends an advance in 2001 and a series of advances from 2015 to 2020 were by way of loan agreements, being liabilities in the balance sheet identifying the property of the parties – Where the wife contends that the evidence does not establish loan agreements in the terms contended by the husband, or in the alternative that recovery of the 2001 advance is statute-barred, or in the further alternative that it is not likely that either advance will be called upon to be repaid (Biltoft and Biltoft (1995) FLC 92-614) – Where the husband’s initial financial contributions and the financial support provided by his parents during the marriage attracts significant weight when consideration is given to the use made of those contributions (Pierce v Pierce (1999) FLC 92-844) – Where both the parties worked hard in their respective spheres throughout the marriage relationship – Where the wife makes a Kennon v Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757 contention that her contributions were made more onerous and arduous – Orders made adjusting the property of the parties 45.5 per cent to the wife and 54.5 per cent to the husband.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim application for sale of a property – where prior sale orders made by consent – where sale has not yet been executed due to a dispute about what the ‘best arm’s length price’ obtainable means –– orders for the property to be sold at auction.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment to final Order - Where the parties provided a jointly signed minute of order on 12 August 2024 seeking an amendment to the final Order made 29 May 2024 pursuant to s 79A(1A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where this Court was functus officio upon the making of the final Order – Where an Application for Consent Order was filed by the parties on 22 August 2024 and given a new file number – Where the Application was transferred to this Court on 26 August 2024 and an Order made in chambers in terms of the minute Where family law or child support proceedings cannot be instituted in this Court and the result of such jurisdictional problems creates uncertainty and unnecessary costs for litigants.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ADJOURNMENT – Where the mother seeks an adjournment one month before final hearing– Where the father and Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose adjournment – Where adjournment is not warranted – Consideration of AON Risk Services v ANU – Consideration of s 69ZN of the Family Law Act – Where adjournment application dismissed – Orders made extending time for mother to file material.

FAMILY LAW – CASE MANAGEMENT– Interim Property – Where wife seeks injunctions to operate on savings accounts of the husband – Where husband opposes this on the basis that he needs these savings to pay tax and other financial obligations – Injunction granted for a portion of the funds in Australian bank account – Held that husband is free to use the remainder of his savings to pay creditors on condition that he provide evidence of this to the wife.

FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – COSTS – Where the wife seeks costs of interlocutory applications by the husband for appointment of a litigation guardian and injunctions – Where the proceedings were before the Court three times and the parties entered into consent orders – Where the wife seeks costs as agreed or assessed on a party/party basis – Where the husband’s application for a litigation guardian was inappropriate and should not have been brought on the basis of the available evidence – Where the husband’s conduct in bringing the application for a litigation guardian justifies an award of costs in the wife’s favour – Where both parties made offers in writing to resolve claims for injunctive relief – Where the ultimate consent position reached by the parties was closer to what was proffered by the wife than the husband – Where the conduct of the husband in relation to the injunctive orders sought does not justify an order of costs in the wife’s favour – Order for the husband to pay the wife’s costs of his interlocutory application as agreed or assessed as to 30 per cent only of those costs.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Gender Dysphoria –Where consent orders are made – Where the Court distinguishes this case from the facts of that in Re Kelvin – – Where all parties seek a declaration of Gillick competence for the subject child – Where the subject child wishes to undergo “stage two” gender affirming treatment – Where the Court declares that the child is Gillick competent – Where an auxiliary name change order is sought to affirm the new gender identity of the child – Where the Court considers that the proposed name change will benefit the welfare of the child – Where the Court discusses the benefit of including subject children of advanced age in gender affirming proceedings.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Whether the mother should have sole parental responsibility – Spend time with arrangements – Where the mother alleges that the father sexually abused his niece – Where the mother alleges family violence by the father – Orders made for sole parental responsibility – Orders for the father to spend time with the child two occasions per week supervised or in a public place.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – adjournment application by all parties – proceeding fixed for one month duration – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Whether either parent poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the child – Whether either parent has capacity to promote the child’s relationship with the other parent – Where it is found that the mother made false claims that the father coerced her into having sex and/or raped her – Where the mother’s claim that the father sexually abused the child is groundless – Whether the child can have a relationship with both parents if she remains in the primary care of the mother – Where it is found that it is in the child’s best interests to live with the father – Where the mother will be restrained from spending any time or communicating with the child for a period of six weeks – Where following the moratorium, the mother’s time with the child will be professionally supervised until 2027.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING - parental responsibility – where s 102NA applies – where the matter has a long and complex history - where a recovery order was previously executed – where the children have not seen the mother since April 2024 – where an Order had been made that neither party and no third party seek the children's views – where a third party asked the children their views – where the Family Report writer recommends time and communication with the mother is suspended on an interim basis – where time Orders are suspended – where telephone communication with the younger children is permitted – where the matter is set down for final hearing.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife’s Application in a Proceeding seeks wide-ranging orders, primarily about disclosure – Extensive disclosure provided by the husband – Consideration of the overarching purpose and requirements of efficiency, timeliness, cost and proportionality confining the scope of arguments about disclosure – Rules about and obligations of disclosure generally not intended to place one party in a position to undertake an unreasonable, overly detailed, unnecessarily fastidious or obsessive audit of another party’s expenditure, dealings and transactions over many years – Where the evidence did not establish the husband’s existing disclosure was oppressive to the wife – Where some disclosure sought by the wife was not relevant to issues in the proceeding – Where the wife sought to discharge earlier court orders on the basis of non-compliance by the husband – Where the husband provided acceptable explanation for non-compliance – Husband granted an extension of time for compliance with orders – Application dismissed – All questions of costs reserved.