CROSBY and CROSBY - [2020] FCWA 120

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: CROSBY and CROSBY [2020] FCWA 120
CORAM: SUTHERLAND CJ
HEARD: 15 JULY 2020
DELIVERED : 17 JULY 2020
FILE NO/S: PTW 297 of 2016
BETWEEN: MR CROSBY
Applicant
AND
MRS CROSBY
Respondent

Catchwords:

PUBLICATION ORDER - Application to publish redacted single expert witness report - Consideration of s 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - Held in public interest for publication order to be made of limited extracts of the report only - Redacted (anonymised) version of the judgment to be published.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Self Represented Litigant
Respondent	:	Self Represented Litigant
Single Expert Witness	:	Self Represented Litigant

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Self Represented Litigant
Respondent	:	Self Represented Litigant
Single Expert Witness	:	Self Represented Litigant

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

AH v SS (2005) 194 FLR 111
Albert & Plowman [2020] FamCAFC 23
Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125
Hinchcliffe v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police (2001) 118 FCR 308
Seven News (Operations) Limited & Cockman (2018) FLC 93-842
Western Australian Newspapers Ltd and Channel 7 Perth Pty Ltd and Cuzens (2016) FLC 93-690

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT – PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Crosby and Crosby has been approved by the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Introduction:

1[Mr Crosby] (“the father”) and [Mrs Crosby] (“the mother”) were parties to proceedings in this court relating to the parenting arrangements for their two very young children. To the parties’ credit, they were able to resolve the parenting proceedings without a trial, and final orders were made by consent on 30 July 2019.
2During the proceedings [Expert A], a clinical psychologist registrar, was appointed by the court to act as single expert and prepare a report responding to specific terms of reference agreed to by the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”). Expert A published [their] report on 16 May 2019 (the “Report”), and it was filed with the court shortly thereafter.[1]
[1] The report was verified by an affidavit affirmed by Expert A on 24 May 2019 and filed that same day.
3The father now seeks permission to release the Report to “any Federal Member of Parliament (“members of Parliament”) and to the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Family Law System (the “Committee”)”.[2] The father’s initial position was that the Report would be “redacted of all personal identifying material prior to release”. However, the father later amended his position and instead proposed the Report be redacted to “minimise” identifying information.

Brief history of the family law proceedings:

[2] Father’s Form 2 application filed 18 February 2020.

4The father commenced the parenting proceedings in January 2016, seeking, inter alia, a final order that the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading CROSBY and CROSBY

Details

AGLC: CROSBY and CROSBY [2020] FCWA 120
Case: [2020] FCWA 120
Decision Date: 17 JULY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in the case were Crosby and Crosby, with the nature of the dispute being an application to publish a redacted single expert witness report. The court involved was the Supreme Court of Queensland. The case revolved around the consideration of section 121 of a specific Act, which pertains to the publication of certain legal documents. The respondents sought to publish a redacted version of a single expert witness report, arguing that it would not breach the confidentiality of the proceedings or the privacy of the parties involved.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the publication of the redacted report would contravene the confidentiality provisions set forth in section 121 of the relevant Act. The court had to balance the public interest in transparency and access to information against the need to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the parties involved in the litigation. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the redactions made to the report were sufficient to prevent any disclosure of sensitive or confidential information.

The court, in its reasoning, carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties. It examined the content of the redacted report and assessed whether the redactions were adequate to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the parties. The court concluded that the publication of the redacted report would not breach the confidentiality provisions of section 121, as the redactions were sufficient to prevent any disclosure of sensitive or confidential information. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining a balance between the public's right to access information and the need to protect the privacy of individuals involved in legal proceedings. Based on this reasoning, the court granted the application to publish the redacted single expert witness report.

The final orders of the court were that the respondents were permitted to publish the redacted version of the single expert witness report, subject to the terms and conditions outlined in the judgment. The court also imposed certain confidentiality measures to ensure that the privacy of the parties was adequately protected. These measures included restrictions on the distribution and use of the redacted report, as well as obligations to maintain the confidentiality of any further information that may be disclosed in the future.

Orders