Chrystie & Dellas

In the matter of *Chrystie & Dellas*, Altobelli J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the father (Mr Chrystie) to review a registrar's decision to strike out a subpoena. The subpoena had been issued to Mr B, a clinical psychologist treating the child, X, in ongoing parenting proceedings. Mr B had objected to the subpoena, citing concerns about the psychological safety of X, the potential adverse impact on X's relationship with his father, and the risk of damaging the therapeutic relationship between X and himself.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the registrar erred in striking out the subpoena and, consequently, whether the psychologist's objections should be dismissed and the subpoena upheld. This involved an examination of the principles of public interest immunity and the relevance of the subpoenaed material to the substantive parenting proceedings.

Altobelli J reasoned that the registrar's decision to strike out the subpoena was appropriate. The court found that the subpoena lacked the necessary relevance to the parenting proceedings. The psychologist's stated concerns about the potential harm to the child and the integrity of the therapeutic relationship were given significant weight. The court applied the principle that subpoenas should not be used to obtain material that is irrelevant or that could cause undue harm, particularly in the context of child-related family law matters where the paramount consideration is the best interests of the child.

The application for review was dismissed. The court ordered that the father's application be dismissed, upholding the registrar's decision to strike out the subpoena issued to the psychologist.