Bunyon and Lewis (No 2)

In *Bunyon & Lewis (No 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered interlocutory matters in proceedings concerning a four-year-old child. The applicant, the deceased mother's cousin, sought orders for the child to live in Australia with her father, who was residing in the Netherlands with the child. The substantive dispute involved the applicant's desire for the child to have contact with her maternal family in Australia.

The court was required to determine three contentious interlocutory issues: whether a family report should be ordered, whether the father and child should attend in Australia for the purposes of such a report, and whether the report should be privately funded or conducted by a family consultant. The applicant supported the ordering of a family report, while the respondent father opposed it, raising concerns about its relevance and the source of funding for the child's travel to Australia.

Justice Cronin determined that a family report was necessary to provide expert advice to the Court regarding the child's relationship with her maternal family and to assist in determining appropriate contact arrangements. The court ruled that the attendance of the child and father in Australia for the report was a matter for the family consultant to manage, with the possibility of revisiting the issue if disagreements arose. The court also ordered that the report be undertaken by a family consultant appointed by the Director of Child Dispute Services, rather than a privately nominated professional, citing the functions and obligations of family consultants under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and their role as officers of the court.

The court made several orders to progress the case towards a hearing scheduled for August 2013. These included directions for the filing and service of affidavits of evidence in chief, the payment of setting down and trial fees, and the attendance of the parties and the child upon a family consultant for the preparation of a family report. The orders also stipulated that no further material be filed without leave and outlined consequences for non-compliance, including the potential relisting of the case and the possibility of proceeding on an undefended basis.