Pauwels & Radu (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 779 (31 October 2025)

Documents and things you must produce from your possession, custody or control

1. Mr Radu also known as Mr Radu (born in 1968);
2. ACN [...] G PTY LTD;
3. ACN [...] H PTY LTD;
4. ACN [...] J PTY LTD;
5. ACN [...] K PTY LTD;
6. ACN [...] L PTY LTD;
7. ACN [...] M PTY LTD
8. ACN [...] N PTY LTD
9. ACN [...] O PTY LTD
10. ACN [...] P PTY LTD
11. ACN [...] Q PTY LTD
12. ACN [...] R PTY LIMITED
13. ACN [...] S PTY LTD
14. ACN [...] T PTY LTD
15. ACN [...] U PTY LTD
16. ACN [...] V PTY LTD
17. ACN [...] W PTY LTD
18. ACN [...] Z PTY LTD
19. LL Trust ABN [...]
20. QQ Trust ABN [...]
21. RR Testamentary Trust
22. SS Unit Trust ABN [...]
23. CC Trust ABN [...]
24. TT Trust ABN [...]
25. UU Superannuation Fund ABN [...]
26. VV Trust
27. AA Trust ABN [...]
28. WW Trust ABN [...]
29. XX Trust ABN [...]

or any other entity, company, partnership or trust in which Mr Radu (D.O.B is 1968) has an interest in ("the Mr Radu Group") from 1 July 2021, including but not limited to:

1. Any financial statements (including balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, depreciation schedules, taxation returns and taxation assessments);
2. All Business Activity Statements;
3. Current Australian Taxation Office ('ATO') Statement of Accounts;
4. All Trust Deeds (including any deeds or amendment/variations to deeds or minutes amending the terms of the trust) and Company Constitutions and/or Articles of Memorandum;
5. All Minutes of all Meetings and Resolutions of any entity;
6. All loan and credit/finance applications including but not limited to:
   1. All applications for refinance/loan agreement to fund Mr Radu's $5,000,000 intended investment in BB Limited ACN [...] in 2025.
   2. All applications for refinance/loan agreement to refinance any loan/borrowings secured on the real property located at FF Street, Suburb GG including in October 2024.
   3. All applications to refinance/loan agreement in relation to any loan/credit facility using property in the name of Mr Radu, or any company in which he is/or was a director from 30 January 2024 to date.
7. Any Management Agency Agreement, Management Letting Rights agreement or other agreement with regard to the management of any property, leasing or furniture/maintenance levies for any entity in which the husband has an interest;
8. Statement for all directors loan accounts and any Division 7A loan agreements;
9. Records of all trust distribution including named beneficiaries and account details (name/bank/account details/date) for payment of all distributions;
10. Application for refinance to National Australia Bank for YY Pty Ltd ATF CC Trust the subject of the valuation dated 22 April 2025;
11. All documents in relation to Mr Radu's share purchases in BB Limited and/or any entity in the Mr Radu Group's share purchases in BB Limited;
12. All minutes of meetings of the QQ Trust and H Pty Ltd from 1 January 2015 to date.
13. All personal guarantees provided by Ms Pauwels (DOB 1967) in relation to any of the property of Ms Pauwels or Mr Radu or the Mr Radu Group or any guarantee or indemnity provided by Ms Pauwels in relation to any borrowings or liabilities of Mr Radu or the Mr Radu Group;
14. Copy of any credit/loan application or security agreement and any statements in respect of same in the name of the husband or an entity in which the husband has an interest;
15. All documents used to calculate the Husband's taxable income at $800,000 per annum in ApplyOnline Loan Application printed on 14 July 2025.

1. All records of all instructions from 1 January 2015 including but not limited to emails, letters and file notes provided to ZZ Legal Services Pty Ltd in relation to any will of Mrs AB Radu, the RR Testamentary trust and the Estate of Mrs AB Radu.
2. All records of all instructions from 1 January 2015 from Mrs AB Radu including but not limited to emails, letters and file notes in relation to her will and estate planning and the RR Testamentary trust.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. On 10 September 2025 the applicant wife caused a subpoena to issue addressed to Mr PP, OO Pty Ltd ("the objector"). Documents were to be provided to the registry by 24 September 2025.
2. On 26 September 2025 the objector filed a Notice of Objection - Subpoena in these proceedings. The subpoena objection was listed for hearing on 2 October 2025 before a Senior Judicial Registrar. The intervenor's objection was dismissed.
3. On 16 October 2025 the intervenor filed an Application for Review of the Orders of the Senior Judicial Registrar (dismissing their subpoena objection).
4. On 21 October 2025 the intervenor filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking to stay the Orders of 2 October 2025 which provide a regime of production and inspection of documents.
5. The proceedings between the applicant wife and respondent husband concern property adjustment at the end of the relationship. The husband did not participate in the subpoena objection hearing.
6. In issue in the proceedings (and relevantly to the subpoena hearing) is the value of various corporate entities, the extent of the husband's income and financial resources and the manner in which the assets of the husband's late mother were accumulated.
7. Two single experts have been appointed:

(1) Ms AC, forensic accountant;

(2) Mr AD in respect of three hospitality businesses.

1. The documents sought by the wife are said to be necessary information for the single experts and I accept that submission for the reasons set out below.
2. The financial affairs of the parties have some complexity and the parties are significantly at issue about the value of various entities.

1. It is important to record the content of the objection as filed. There were seven bases identified in the Notice of Objection as being grounds on which the objector sought to resist both production and inspection:

(1) Lack of relevance to the proceedings;

(2) Legal professional privilege;

(3) Oppressiveness or undue burden;

(4) Fishing expedition (overly broad or speculative requests);

(5) Privacy or confidentiality concerns;

(6) Improper purpose or abuse of process;

(7) Improper service or lack of conduct money.

1. It is uncontroversial that at the hearing of the Review the objector only relied upon (3) and (7) and then only has to the extent of conduct money.
2. In the Application for Review the objector sought to set the subpoena "aside in part pursuant to Rule 6.38 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) and Rule 18.15 of the General Federal Law Rules 2025.
3. Rule 6.38 provides a mechanism rather than a basis for a subpoena to be set aside. The reference to Rule 18.15 of the General Federal Law Rules is curious. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) have no application to proceedings in this Court (and in any event Rule 18.09 would appear to relate to setting aside subpoena).

1. The objector was notified of the listing of the objector's Review application on 29 October 2025. On that day the objector was served with a new affidavit in the wife's case. The objector prepared a new affidavit which I rejected as it was served on the day of the hearing. In the main the objector accepted that the affidavit went to two issues: past subpoena (not relevant to this determination) and conduct money.
2. I raised with the wife and the objector the fact that the conduct money question could and should be deferred since there is a live issue as to whether the costs of complying with the subpoena should be borne by the husband or the wife in circumstances where the wife alleges significant failures by the husband to disclose relevant documents.
3. Against that background I concluded that there could be no prejudice to the objector in rejection of the affidavit, as his lawyer remained free to make submissions about the scope of the subpoena and the question of costs of compliance could be deferred.
4. I understand that the objector is aggrieved by his Review being brought on on short notice. However, my focus in considering the issue was on whether there was an identifiable prejudice to the objector in the matter having been listed with two days notice.
5. The scope of the dispute is framed by the subpoena on the one hand and the notice of objection on the other.
6. The parties have already argued this case before the Senior Judicial Registrar.
7. Neither party identified that there were factual matters which had occurred in the intervening period which changed the facts relevant to the determination. Neither party identified such a change.
8. The parties had already prepared written submissions.
9. I accept that listing on short notice may cause professional and personal inconvenience but they are not the same as prejudice.
10. The issues remained the same.
11. I did not permit the wife to rely on the lengthy annexures to her recent affidavit but accepted tender of limited identified documents said to inform the dispute.
12. I am satisfied that this balanced any prejudice, having regard to my overarching obligations.

1. It was identified during the oral hearing that while the schedule to the subpoena seeks documents in paragraph 2 from 1 June 2021, this is in error and should seek documents in the period 1 July 2021 to date of receipt of the subpoena.
2. It was not specifically argued that the time period itself was onerous or burdensome - it covers the tax years 2021/2022, 2022/2023, 2023/2024 and 2024/2025. In respect of BAS statements and the like it would also capture documents in the current financial year. Given the original valuation has been undertaken as at 30 June 2023, this date range is appropriate to the task.

QQ Trust, H Pty Ltd, RR Testamentary Trust, Mrs AB Radu and the Estate of Mrs AB Radu

1. Specific submissions were address to paragraph 2(l) of the subpoena schedule which sought minutes of the QQ Trust and H Pty Ltd from 1 January 2015. In addition, objection was taken to provision of "all records of all instructions from 1 January 2015 including but not limited to emails, letters and file notes provided to ZZ Legal Services Pty Ltd in relation to any will of Mrs AB Radu, the RR Testamentary Trust and the Estate of Mrs AB Radu." Finally, the subpoena sought "[a]ll records of all instructions from 1 January 2015 from Mrs AB Radu including but not limited to her will and estate planning and the RR Testamentary Trust.
2. The wife gives evidence that Mrs AB Radu (the husband's mother) was in receipt of an income tested pension until 2015. The husband's mother died on 25 January 2023.
3. The wife caused to be issued a subpoena to ZZ Legal Services Pty Ltd. Those lawyers drafted the will of the husband's mother dated 14 February 2021. Probate of the estate of the husband's mother was granted on application of the executor (the husband) on 26 June 2024. The chief asset of the estate was 100 units in the QQ Trust with a value in the Grant of Probate of $5,270,086.30.
4. The wife says this factual background makes the question of how the husband's mother acquired the units a relevant matter to the adjudication of the dispute between the husband and wife. Ultimately the objector did not maintain the objection on the basis of relevance but focused on the scope of the request as unduly burdensome.
5. Documents produced in answer to the subpoena to ZZ Legal Services Pty Ltd included emails from Mr PP which would fall within Clause 3 of the subpoena. While the time period is just over ten years the scope of the subject matter is not broad. Clause 4 is narrower in scope because it can only relate to the period between 1 January 2015 and 25 January 2023. I find that it is appropriate that the subpoenaed party comply with Clauses 2(l), 3 and 4 of the subpoena.
6. The objector submits that the wife is seeking to obtain discovery via subpoena. Same is permissible where there has been a failure to discharge discovery obligations. The husband did not take part in the hearing and give evidence that the documents had already been provided. In those circumstances it is perfectly acceptable for the wife to seek them from another source.
7. Submissions were made by the objector that the expression "any other entity, company, partnership or trust in which Mr Radu (born in 1968) has an interest in ("the Mr Radu Group") requires interpretation since the expression "has an interest in" is not sufficiently clear. The context is important. The subpoenaed party is the husband's accountant. The husband's accountant was the author of a document HH Group Structure, HH Group Mudmap (Exhibit 3). I am satisfied that the accountant knows what the expression means.
8. Submissions were made by the objector about Clause 2(n) to the effect that the clause does not seek a specific document or specific documents but rather requires the subpoenaed party to interpret what might be sought by the subpoena. The wife says the Court requires accurate information about security in order to determine the assets and liabilities and the exposure of each party to any ongoing liability post order. Again, relevance is not in issue.
9. The Clause should seek "a copy of any credit/loan application or security agreement where an asset belonging to the husband or an entity listed in Clause 2 or any entity in which the husband is a shareholder or beneficiary."
10. The wife has sought any Building Management Agency Agreements or Management Letting Rights Agreements or agreements for the management of property leasing or furniture maintenance levies for any entity in which the husband has an interest. The wife has been provided with a Management Agency Agreement for the AE property (also known as AE building or AF Street, Suburb AG). The wife says that her experience during the marriage informs her understanding that similar agreement should be available in respect of other sites. I have amended the proposed clause to ensure that it does not require interpretation but identifies the documents which need to be produced if they are in the accountant's possession.

1. The subpoenaed party seeks costs of complying. I indicated that it would be necessary to defer the issue so that the husband could be heard about whether or not it is appropriate that he pay some or all of the costs of compliance.

1. The wife seeks her costs of the subpoena objection proceedings.
2. Costs are governed by s 114UB of the Family Law Act.
3. The relevant matters in this case are:

(a) The breadth of the formal subpoena objection when considered against what was ultimately argued;

(b) The conduct of the parties to the application;

(c) The financial circumstances of the parties;

(d) Any offer of settlement.

1. The objecting party set out seven bases of objection in the subpoena. All but two were abandoned. The wife was required to file evidence which addressed the matters in the objection. This is a significant consideration. The "scatter gun" nature of the objection was drawn to the attention of the objecting party by way of written submissions before the Judicial Registrar. No amended objection was filed even when the Review was pursued.

1. The objecting party was obliged by the terms of the subpoena to comply with its terms by 24 September 2025.
2. On 26 September 2025 (two days after the day on which compliance was required) the objecting party filed a Notice of Objection.
3. The objecting party failed to provide the documents as required.
4. While I accepted that the objecting party has filed documents late, I cannot be confident that as a non-party to the proceedings they have always had adequate notice and so I do not consider the late filing of submissions before the Judicial Registrar as relevant to my determination. Finally, in respect of conduct, the objecting party filed their Application for Review out of time.

1. The wife says she has assets but her income exceeds her expenditure. I do not know about the financial position of the subpoenaed party.

1. The wife offered to settle the costs aspect of this application. The objector did not respond.
2. I find that there are circumstances justifying a departure from the usual rule. Most significantly the breadth of the objection and the length of time it was maintained as opposed to the objecting party or his lawyer engaging in sensible correspondence to resolve minor issues as has been achieved by my orders.
3. The wife sought the sums of $13,860 and $8,690 by way of costs of the Review and the original hearing.
4. In resisting the costs application, the objector indicated that the wife had been unduly focused on the merits of the case between she and the husband rather than the specific criticisms of the subpoena schedule. I find that the wife's focus on the merits was necessary in circumstances where the objector projected that they would argue relevance, improper purpose and "fishing expedition" - none of which were ultimately argued.
5. This is not a matter which warrants the making of an order for indemnity costs.
6. I propose to discount the wife's claim for costs such that the objector is required to pay two thirds of the claimed costs.
7. It is not appropriate that there be any expense spent by way of assessment of costs. Accordingly, doing the best I can in reliance on the power in the Rules, I propose to order costs in a fixed sum of $15,000.
8. I will make directions for the adjudication of the claim for costs of compliance of the subpoena.
9. I propose to allocate a date for case management and require the parties and the lawyers to attend in person.

I certify that the preceding fifty-six (56) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Christie.