DANELL & SALLER

In the matter of *Danell & Sallers*, the mother applied to the court seeking the discharge of a single expert witness, Dr R. The dispute concerned allegations of abuse and the mother's concerns regarding the expert's impartiality and the reasoning in her report. The application was heard by McClelland J.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the mother had established that Dr R was biased or that her report contained reasoning so flawed as to warrant her discharge as a single expert witness. The mother contended that Dr R made assumptions of fact without evidence, that her reasoning was difficult to follow, and that her conclusions created a perception of bias.

McClelland J dismissed the mother's application, finding that she had failed to establish that Dr R was not open to persuasion. The court applied the principles from *Jia Legeng* and *Helow v Home Secretary*, which establish that a decision-maker's mind need not be blank but must be open to persuasion, and that natural justice does not require the absence of predispositions. The court noted that Dr R had modified her views in response to information from the Independent Children's Lawyer, which was considered a positive indication of an open and impartial approach. Consequently, the court found no basis to discharge Dr R as a single expert witness.

The mother's application was dismissed. The issue of costs was reserved to the final hearing, as the court required further information regarding the mother's financial circumstances to make the necessary assessment under section 117(2A)(a) of the relevant Act.