CRISP & HAYES
Case
•
[2020] FCCA 3359
•18 December 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
CRISP & HAYES [2020] FCCA 3359
[2020] FCCA 3359
18 December 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned a dispute between parents regarding the education and holiday contact arrangements for their child, X. The court was required to determine which high school X should attend, specifically whether X should be enrolled in a selective high school if offered a place, and to address issues concerning X's telephone contact with parents during school holidays. Additionally, the court considered the appointment of a single expert witness to report on matters relating to X's welfare.
The legal issues before the court included the selection of X's secondary school, the potential appointment of a single expert witness, and the specifics of telephone contact arrangements during school holidays. The court also had to consider the definition of "midpoint day" and time for holiday contact, all within the overarching principle of X's best interests.
The court ordered that X be enrolled at B High School, with the provision that if X is offered a place at C High School (a selective school), X should be enrolled there instead. Dr. D was appointed as the Single Expert Witness, with alternative experts nominated should Dr. D be unable to complete the report. The parties were directed to cooperate fully with the expert, including ensuring X's attendance and authorising mental health practitioners to speak with the expert. The court also varied existing orders regarding changeover locations and times during school holidays, and specified telephone contact times. The father was ordered to pay the initial cost of the single expert report, with the issue of contribution from the mother to be determined later.
The court made detailed orders regarding the appointment and conduct of the single expert, including payment for the report and potential cross-examination costs. Existing orders concerning changeover arrangements and telephone contact during school holidays were varied to provide greater clarity and specificity. The matter was adjourned for further directions, with the purpose of considering the expert report and resolving any remaining disputes.
The legal issues before the court included the selection of X's secondary school, the potential appointment of a single expert witness, and the specifics of telephone contact arrangements during school holidays. The court also had to consider the definition of "midpoint day" and time for holiday contact, all within the overarching principle of X's best interests.
The court ordered that X be enrolled at B High School, with the provision that if X is offered a place at C High School (a selective school), X should be enrolled there instead. Dr. D was appointed as the Single Expert Witness, with alternative experts nominated should Dr. D be unable to complete the report. The parties were directed to cooperate fully with the expert, including ensuring X's attendance and authorising mental health practitioners to speak with the expert. The court also varied existing orders regarding changeover locations and times during school holidays, and specified telephone contact times. The father was ordered to pay the initial cost of the single expert report, with the issue of contribution from the mother to be determined later.
The court made detailed orders regarding the appointment and conduct of the single expert, including payment for the report and potential cross-examination costs. Existing orders concerning changeover arrangements and telephone contact during school holidays were varied to provide greater clarity and specificity. The matter was adjourned for further directions, with the purpose of considering the expert report and resolving any remaining disputes.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
CRISP & HAYES [2020] FCCA 3359
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
4
Crisp and Hayes (No.2)
[2014] FCCA 3029
Crisp and Hayes
[2015] FCCA 315
Kirkland & Granger
[2007] FamCA 1471