BANDONI& MILIC

[2015] FamCA 693

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BANDONI& MILIC [2015] FamCA 693

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interlocutory Application – Where the father sought the discharge of the current Court appointed Single Expert and the appointment of another single expert – Where the conclusions of the Single Expert in an additional report may be adverse to the interests of the father in his relationship with the child, but it does not amount to bias – Where the opinions expressed are not outside his area of expertise – Where the Single Expert was not attempting to take on the role of the trier of fact – Where cross examination of the Single Expert is open – Where opinion evidence is not excluded simply because it goes to a fact in issue – Where the Court is not bound by the opinion of the Single Expert – Father’s application dismissed

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), rr 15.44, 15.59

APPLICANT: Mr Bandoni

RESPONDENT: Ms Milic

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:	Legal Aid NSW
FILE NUMBER:	SYC	4953	of	2013

DATE DELIVERED: 21 August 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Newcastle

PLACE HEARD: Newcastle

JUDGMENT OF: Cleary J

HEARING DATE: 13 August 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Levy

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Clayhills Escobar Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Kennedy

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:	Tiyce Partners Lawyers
SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:	Ms O’Rourke

Orders

1. The Application in a Case filed by the father on 15 July 2015 is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Bandoni & Milic is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA  AT NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER: SYC 4953 of 2013

Mr Bandoni

Applicant

And

Ms Milic

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This is an Application in a Case filed by the father on 15 July 2015.  Two orders are sought:

   a)Discharge of an Order made 19 November 2013 appointing a single expert; and

   b)An order for appointment of another single expert.

2. The application is opposed by the respondent mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.  

3. The matter was determined on the basis of the documents set out below and oral and, in the case of the father, written submissions.

4. There is a great deal at stake. The matter has been set down for final hearing for five days commencing 14 December 2015.  If this Single Expert were to be discharged, all parties are committed to keeping those trial dates, but it may not be possible.  If another single expert was to be appointed both parties and the child would be interviewed and observed again.  

5. It is this matter which forms the first basis of opposition by the mother.  She sets out in some detail those professionals the child has spoken with or met over the last two years and strongly submits through her counsel that there should be no more of it.[1]  There is a dispute over whether the child actually met and saw the…