Bass and Bass

In the Family Court of Australia at Sydney, Mr Bass (the applicant husband) and Mrs Bass (the respondent wife) were involved in proceedings concerning their six children, with a particular focus on their nine-year-old son, B. The dispute centred on the husband's dissatisfaction with a report prepared by Professor C, a single court-appointed expert, at a cost of $8,000. The husband sought to amend his application to discharge Professor C as the expert and instead obtain a second report from an adversarial expert, initially Dr W and later Dr R.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the husband should be granted leave to appoint a second expert to prepare a further report and give evidence. This required the court to consider the provisions of Rule 15.49(2) of the Family Court Rules, which govern the circumstances under which a second expert's report may be required. The husband's application was based on an asserted concern about bias in Professor C's report, stemming from her alleged failure to put certain matters to him that were recorded in her findings.

Justice Steele reasoned that Professor C, a well-respected expert in family matters, had provided a comprehensive report. The court found no technical defect in the report, nor was it suggested that Professor C had wrongly applied her expertise or that there was a conflicting school of thought in her field. While Professor C's report included provisos such as "if the wife and children's version of events can be accepted," the judge considered this a common difficulty for psychiatrists in such proceedings, as they cannot observe parties being cross-examined. The court determined that the appropriate remedy for the husband's concerns about the report was to cross-examine Professor C at trial. Furthermore, the judge noted the potential risks and stress to the children, some of whom were in a marginal psychological state, if a further report and interviews were necessitated. Consequently, the court was not satisfied that Professor C's report was biased or that its contents could not be adequately addressed at trial.

Accordingly, the husband's oral application to amend his application to discharge Professor C was refused. The husband's application in a case filed on 13 April 2007 was dismissed. The wife's application and the husband's response were stood over to a date to be fixed for two hours, with the Independent Children's Lawyer excused from attendance. The costs of the day were reserved to the trial judge.